1951-11-12

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Byrne be substituted for that of Mr. Mott on the special committee on railway legislation; and
That the name of Mr. Hees be substituted for that of Mr. Higgins on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and That the name of Mr. Maclnnis be substituted for that of Mr. Gillis on the special joint committee on combines legislation; and that a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Is there to be a new airport constructed in Newfoundland?
2.	If so, is the cost to be borne jointly by Canada and the United States?
3.	Where is it to be situated?


Mr. Rinfrel:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY  EFFECT ON WATER LEVELS OF LAKE ONTARIO

Mr. Lennard:: What effect will the deep sea waterway have on the water levels of lake Ontario?


Mr. Chevrier:: The construction of the St.
Lawrence deep waterway will result in a reduction in the range of water levels on lake Ontario. Under present conditions monthly mean levels range between elevations 242-93 and 249-GS. With the waterway constructed, the monthly mean levels will range between elevations 243-77 and 249-10.



HOMER, ONT., PROPERTY  FEDERAL EXPENDITURES

Mr. Charlton:: 1.	What is the total amount of all expenditure by the government on the property at Homer, county of Lincoln, leased to Richard M. Robertson, by way of purchase, repairs, construction or any other expenditure?
2.	What is the estimated amount of any further expenditures by the government on this property?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.
(a)	Price of land acquired when
canal was constructed	 $	283.10
(b)	Original cost of construction
in 1932 of warehouse and loading platform	 17,091.73
(c)	Rehabilitation of loading platform 1946-47	
4,157.78(d)	Repairs to warehouse, 1951	.	1,465.37Total expenditure to date ..	$ 22,997.982.	No further expenditures are contemplated.



FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: 1.	What were the total amounts of salaries and expenses of members of the fisheries prices support board, from November 1, 1950, to October 31, 1951?
2.	What are the total payments made to each of the ten provinces, under the fisheries prices support board for the same period?
3.	What are the amounts of total payments made to each of the counties in the province of New Brunswick for the same period?
4.	What was the total amount of the fund available for the support of fish prices November 1, 1950?
5.	What percentage of this total was exhausted from November 1, 1950, to October 31, 1951?
6.	Were any applications for assistance from the fisheries prices support board refused by the department?


Mr. MacNaught:: 1.	Salaries, nil; per diem allowances, $1,925; expenses, $3,070.13.
2.	The total payments from the fisheries prices support account were: Newfoundland, $275,211.28; other provinces, nil.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	$24,900,800.47.
5.	One per cent.
6.	The board recommended to the minister that no support action was justified on certain applications for assistance. The Department of Fisheries is not involved in such recommendations.



FISHERIES


Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	In respect of subsidies for the construction of draggers and long-liners, what is the per ton basis of such payments by the Department of Fisheries?
2.	In each of the maritime provinces, how many applications for such subsidies (a) have been granted; (b) have been refused; (c) are pending?
fKOVlNCiAL LIBRARY* VICTORIA, B, a

Questions
3.	Of those granted, what Is (a) the name of each applicant; (b) the tonnage and the type of the boat constructed, and the amount of subsidy paid?
4.	What is the total of such payments to date, in each of the maritime provinces for (a) draggers; (b) long-liners?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Regulations respecting assistance in construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type on the Atlantic coast provide as follows:
The minister may make payments to a provincial government department or agency not exceeding $165 per ton, gross tonnage, for the construction of fishing vessels of the dragger or long-liner type:
(a)	owned by one or more fishermen and1 measuring not less than forty-five feet and not more than sixty feet over-all length of main hull; or
(b)	owned by any group of four or more fishermen and measuring not less than sixty feet to a maximum over-all length of main hull to be determined by the minister.
The regulations interpret "group of four or more fishermen" as including co-operatives and incorporated companies, provided that in the case of a company not less than fifty-one per cent of the stock of such company is purchased and held by not less than four fishermen who are members of the crew of the vessel.
2.	(a) Nova Scotia, 6; New Brunswick, 26; Prince Edward Island, 1; (b) Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil; (c) Nova Scotia, 4; New Brunswick, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil.
A	B		
Name Tonnage Type			Subsidy
Nova Scotia			
L. R. Bollivar....	37-65	L.L.	$3,765.00
Digby Trawling			
Co	34-80	Dr.	5,742.00Alex Nickerson..	37-56	L.	3,756.00M. S. Taylor	39-28	L.L.	3,928.00M. H. Rodgerson	40-20	L.L.	4,020.00J. E. Atkinson...	39-17	L.L.	3,917.00New Brunswick	Hormidas Noel..	32-77	Dr.	5,407.05Theophile Gionet	35-23	Dr.	5,812.95Martin Chiasson..	36-17	Dr.	5,968.05Albert Paulin...	36-17	Dr.	5,968.05Maxime Lanteigne	36-17	Dr.	5,968.05Albert Leger...	36-17	Dr.	5,968.05Frank Wooster..	32-80	Dr.	5,412.00Medard Friolet...	37-32	Dr.	6,177.60Duguay, Hache,	Mallet and	G. Mallet	37-44	Dr.	6,177.60Prudent	Lanteigne	32-92	Dr.	5,431.80Fred Chiasson...	38-31	Dr.	6,321.15Octave	LeBouthillier...	38-31	Dr.	6,321.15Edgar Blanchard.	38-31	Dr.	6,321.15Name Tonnage	Type	Subsidy	Theophile Gionet	38	31	Dr.	6,321	15Hyacinthe Gionet	38	31	Dr.	6,321	15Leonard Paulin..	38	14	Dr.	6,293	10Aurele Chiasson..	38	14	Dr.	6,293	10Leo Chiasson....	38	14	Dr.	6,293	10Allard Guignard..	38	31	Dr.	6,321	15Henri Chiasson...	38	46	Dr.	6,345	90Fidele Thibeau...	38	31	Dr.	6,321	15R. Paulin, Emile	Goupil and	Cesaire Savoy..	38	23	Dr.	6,307	95Wilfred Robichaud	39	10	Dr.	6,451	50Allison McDonald	39	10	Dr.	6,451	50
E. O. Breau, T.
Robichaud, N.
Robichaud and
L. T. Allain...	39-10	Dr.	6,451.50
Frank Wooster,
Brentford Wooster,
Douglas Wooster and Walter
Wooster	 60-18	Dr.	9,929.70
Prince Edward Island
J. O. Gallant_____	39-19	Dr.	6,466.35
4.	(a) Nova Scotia, $5,742.00; New Brunswick, $153,426.90; Prince Edward Island, $6,466.35; (b) Nova Scotia, $19,386.00; New Brunswick, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What is the mileage and cost of each section of the trans-Canada highway under construction, by provinces, during 1950 and to date in 1951?
2.	What have been the payments or credits by (a) each province; (b) the federal government?
3.	What is the mileage and cost, by provinces, of each section accepted to date as part of the trans-Canada highway for which provinces are given credit?
4.	What further sections, by provinces, have been approved for construction, stating mileage and estimated cost?


Mr. Winters:: 1. The mileage under construction as at March 31, 1951, and payments made to each province for work done during the fiscal year 1950-51 are as follows:
Miles
Province Grading Paving			Claims Paid
Newfoundland .. Prince Edward	153	-	$ 957,843.79Island	
New Bruns-	19	-	134,135.43wick	30	-Ontario 	145	66	2,749,328.63Manitoba	30	44	273,958.99Saskatchewan ..	151	392,169.26Alberta 	
British	15	42	193,055.70Columbia ...	29	38	2,504,392.39Total	572	190	$7,204,884.19
The mileage approved for construction and payments made to each province between April 1, and November 3, 1951 are as follows: Miles
Province Grading Paving Claims Paid
Newfoundland ..	25	-	$ 152,637.25Prince Edward Island	13	10	New Brunswick 	29	670,871.43Ontario 	95	45	1,237,292.91Manitoba	7	29	74,403.21Saskatchewan ..	75	73	102,795.80Alberta 	143	-	-British Columbia ..	23	22	92,670.14Total	381	208	$2,330,670.74
2. (a) The federal government has no record of the total payments made by each province for work on the trans-Canada highway, as there are numerous items which are not sharable by Canada, such as cost of right of way, cost of fencing, head office expenses, safety signs and other items and these are not included in the claims. The provinces are responsible for the preparation and submission of claims and each province prepares and submits claims at its own convenience. Upon receipt of provincial claims Canada contributes 50 per cent of all sharable items.
(b) Total payments made to the provinces by the federal government in respect of claims submitted up to November 3, 1951, are as
follows:
Newfoundland	 $1,110,481.04
Prince Edward Island	 134,135.43
New Brunswick	 670,871.43
Ontario	 3,986,621.54
Manitoba	 348,362.20
Saskatchewan	 494,965.06
Alberta	 193,055.70
British Columbia	 2,597,062.53
Total $9,535,554.93
3.	The mileage and payments therefor made to each province for sections of highway accepted to date as part of the trans-Canada highway which were constructed prior to December 9, 1949, are as follows:
Questions
Manitoba, British Columbia, and New Brunswick are the only provinces which have to date submitted claims for prior construction.
4.	See answer to No. 1. Since November 3, 1951, nil.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND


Mr. McLure:: 1.	Have any changes been made in the Prince Edward Island lobster fishing seasons?
2.	II so, what changes?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



MACQUARRIE COMMITTEE


Mr. Thatcher:: What expenses had the MacQuarrie committee incurred as at October 31, 1951, for (a) salaries; (b) travelling; (c) all other purposes?


Mr. Garson:: The expenses incurred by the committee to study the Combines Investigation Act (MacQuarrie committee) as at October 31, 1951, are as follows: (a) Fees, $11,920*, (b) travelling, $8,091.72; (c) all other purposes, none.
travelling expenses alone received by chairman, Mr. Justice J. H. MacQuarrie.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	What were the average landed prices received by fishermen on the mainland of Nova Scotia, in cents per pound, for the years 1939, 1949, 1950, 1951 to date, in respect of each of the following: steak cod; market cod; scrod cod; large haddock; scrod haddock; medium halibut; chicken halibut; herring; mackerel; lobsters, western Nova Scotia; lobsters, eastern Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the total landed value of fish production in Nova Scotia, in the years 1939, 1949, 1950?
3.	What were the average hourly earnings in fish processing plants in Nova Scotia, in each of the years 1939, 1949, 1950?
4.	What were the average hourly earnings in all Nova Scotia industries for each of the above years?
Province	Miles Paid by Canada
Newfoundland	 -	-
Prince Edward Island .. -	-
New Brunswick	
17	$148,126Ontario	
-	-Manitoba	
69	36,711Saskatchewan	
-	-Alberta	
-	-British Columbia	59	281,379.35Total 145	$466,216.35


Mr. Rinfret:: Return tabled.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What have been the totals of enlistments, by months, for this year to date in the active branches of (a) the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) the Canadian army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	What has been the expenditure, by months, for recruiting, advertising and publicity during the same period for the active forces?
904	HOUSE OF
Inquiries oj the Ministry
3.	What have been the totals of enlistment, by months, for this year to date in the reserve branches of (a) the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) the Canadian army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force?
4.	What has been the expenditure, by months, for recruiting, advertising and publicity during the same period for the reserve forces?



FARMERS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	During each of the years 1945 to 1950, inclusive, how many farmers operated in each of the Canadian provinces?
2.	How many filed income tax returns?
3.	How many of those returns showed liability for income tax?
4.	What was the total amount of assessment in each province?
5.	What was the total amount collected?
6.	How many investigators were employed in each province each year, investigating farm income?
7.	How many prosecutions were launched as a result of investigations?
8.	How many convictions were obtained?
9.	What was the amount of farm income in each province, in each of the above years?



GASOLINE


Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Are figures available to show (a) cost per gallon of producing synthetic gasoline by coal hydrogenation; (b) cost per gallon of gasoline made from oil shale; (c) present wholesale price at refinery, for gasoline produced from crude oil?



BUTTER AND MARGARINE


Mr. McLure:: 1. What are the regulations regarding the manufacture of (a) butter; (b) margarine, for human consumption?
_ 2. What amount of each kind of oil or other ingredient is used in the manufacture of a pound of margarine?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Anderson:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, from January, 1950, to date, in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, with regard to a government grant to the apple growers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia.


Mr. Gardiner:: I should like to say that the answer will be subject to some of the correspondence being provincial, for the production of which we may have to obtain consent.



ARMED FORCES DEPENDENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which was given last
(Mr. Fulton.]

Friday. Has consideration been given to the provision of special financial assistance, such as that granted through the dependents allowance board in world war II, to the dependents of servicemen to enable them to meet unexpected expenses such as medical and hospital accounts?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Unfortunately the detailed reply
prepared for me was not handed to me before I came into the house, but I will see that the question is answered tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister state if it is the intention of his department at an early date to announce the lifting of the ban against the importation of cattle and hogs from Great Britain, a ban that was put into effect in August of this year as a result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in that country?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Haldimand was kind enough to give me advance notice of his question. In reply I may say that owing to the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland, and in order to prevent the introduction of this disease into Canada, the importation of all cattle, sheep, goats, other ruminants and swine into Canada from England and Scotland, either direct or through the Glasgow quarantine station, was prohibited by ministerial order of August 8, 1951. Information has been received from the ministry of agriculture and fisheries that the outbreak was successfully dealt with and all restrictions terminated as of midnight, August 15-16, 1951.
As a period of ninety days will have elapsed on November 16, 1951, since these restrictions were removed, it is considered practical to issue permits for the importation of cattle, sheep, goats, other ruminants and swine from England and Scotland, through the Glasgow quarantine station only, on or after November 17, provided no other cases of foot-and-mouth disease are reported in the interval. It is therefore proposed to revoke the order of August 8 immediately the ninety-day period from the lifting of restrictions has expired.

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Press dispatches printed in Vancouver over the week end indicate the probability of a branch railway line being constructed from the Prince Rupert line of the Canadian National to Kitimat, the site of the new aluminum plant. Is the Minister of Transport in a position to make any statement with regard to the proposed line?


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say at this time is that officers of the Canadian National Railways have been discussing with the persons involved, namely, the Aluminum Company of Canada, the question of building a line which would link Kitimat with Terrace, which I understand is on the Prince George-Prince Rupert line.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received letters from various Legion branches in the city of Winnipeg, the Brook-lands and Weston branch, branch No. 1 on Sargent avenue, St. James branch and others, asking that the question of increasing the war veterans allowance be dealt with at this session rather than next? Can the minister say whether he is giving consideration to these requests?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have received representations
from various groups in different parts of the country concerning the question of war veterans allowance. The matter has been considered and the government's policy has been announced.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
(Translation):
Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, according to the speech from the throne and to recent statements by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the house will be called upon, at this session, to enact legislation embodying certain recommendations of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences in Canada.
Better known as the Massey commission, it could more accurately and more realistically be described as the royal commission for the promotion of centralization in Canada.
To be sure, protests against this investigation and the recommendations that followed are not always popular or looked upon with favour.
The Right Hon. Vincent Massey and his colleagues have sought to promote the cause of education, arts, letters and sciences, but nothing is easier than committing grave mistakes in the name of education. There is no point in trying to hide the truth: the investigation in itself was a breach of provincial autonomy, as are also the attempts to implement various recommendations inconsistent with our constitution, incompatible with the sovereignty of the provinces.
As the representative of a Quebec riding, I am able to assert that the French-Canadian population is aware of the dangers of the moment. Montreal-Matin, in its November 26, 1949 issue, reported the following declaration from the prime minister of Quebec:
The province of Quebec cannot and will not give its sanction to a mandate emanating from an authority lacking the power to delegate it . . . The Quebec government is the guardian and the trustee of sacred and inviolable rights.
It is our responsibility to preserve those rights especially in the matter of education, and our provincial government cannot set out along the wrong path. I must emphasize that the very principle of the commission is false. It infringes the most sacred of provincial rights, namely our exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education. No investigation like the Massey commission's can ever take place without encroaching upon that field which, It can never be repeated too often, is solely under provincial jurisdiction.
With all due respect for those who hold opposite views, I must say that, in setting up such a commission, Ottawa encroaches upon provincial rights.
The inquiry lasted three years and led to the recommendations with which we are now familiar, centralizing recommendations if any ever deserved that name, and suggesting among other things that subsidies be distributed by the federal government to Canadian universities.

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche
We realize the Massey commission did attempt to justify its position by stating there is a difference between education and culture, the former coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the iprovincial authorities while the latter could very well concern the federal authorities without infringing upon the Canadian constitution. That is a specious distinction, based on words alone and indefensible.
As long as the central government interferes with the universities-as it must because it cannot allow the taxpayers' money it will pay to the universities to be spent for any purpose-the government is making a first step that will enable it, in due course, to interfere in the affairs of the specialized schools, high schools and even primary schools.
Beyond doubt, our universities need money. Who does not feel the need for money today with the inflationary pressures tolerated and fostered by our government, especially through its taxation? But would they need money if Ottawa handed back to the provinces the taxation fields it took away from them? We do not believe so.
At all events, the province of Quebec is opposed to this subsidizing of universities. Members of the provincial cabinet have often expressed their views on the matter and the solicitor general, the Hon, Antoine Rivard, recently stated that the Massey report contained seeds of death.
In addition, recently the University of Montreal Alumni Association, following the example set by the general students' association of the same institution, officially came out against federal subsidies.
A prominent organization such as the Montreal chamber of commerce also took the same position. I could mention a great many more testimonies to the same effect. For instance, the Canadian Catholic conference, an organization grouping all Catholic bishops of Canada, stated before the Massey commission that education at all its levels is a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The commission did not include universities in the fields where, in its opinion, the dominion government may intervene.
A distinguished prelate from our province, His Excellency Bishop J. A. Papineau of Joliette, stated last October 9:
Legislation in educational matters is solely a provincial prerogative. The provinces alone are competent to deal with it. As long as we have provincial governments like the one now

directing the affairs of the province of Quebec, we are assured of making giant strides in the field of education.
We seem to forget that the provinces have long been interested in the universities. Ottawa would now have us believe that the universities cannot exist without it. It so happens that the province of Quebec has created universities without federal assistance, and has kept them alive, also without federal assistance. It has subsidized them to the extent of several millions of dollars in grants of every kind so that nowadays these universities are among the greatest and best known in the country.
Mr. Speaker, is it not humiliating for the government of the province of Quebec, as well as for the people of that province, to find that the federal government is now interfering in the affairs of our very own institutions, those we have organized ourselves through our own sacrifices?
In spite of Inadequate resources, said the Hon. Antoine Rivard on September 16, 1951, we have found a way of entering the field of higher learning. True, we were the descendants of impecunious settlers, but our fathers set heroic examples. Hardship did not make them stray from their duty. In order to preserve their language, their faith and traditions they turned down large donations. They unflinchingly stuck to their principles, well aware that it was a matter of life and death.
And now again, Mr. Speaker, Quebec intends to refuse generous amounts, fearing they might cost us our language, our faith, our traditions. I know that my colleagues in the government party will hotly deny this, that they will proclaim their intention of making sure that such a thing will never occur. Unfortunately, I could not rely on their statements, however sincere they may be.
Unhappily we must recognize that we, in French Canada, were never coddled by the federal government when it came to having our language, our faith and our traditions respected in Ottawa or elsewhere in this country. If they are at all consistent, these members will admit that, although they are members of the government party, they have had to engage in Homeric battles not to secure justice but to do away with the worst wrongs in the army, in the civil service or elsewhere in the federal administration.
Mr. Eugene l'Heureux, a Liberal propagandist, commenting on a speech in which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) tried to justify federal aid to the universities, wrote the following in Le Soleil, of Quebec city, on November 8, 1950:

If tomorrow some federal members should try to control university training, there will also be those who will defend our universities. A people seeking to live without perils is a people that may not live at all. That is what would happen to French Canada, if it chose to be led by the makers of prejudices, of resentment and bugaboos.
There are today members of parliament who are not concerned about giving us that to which we are entitled, and those who would give us our due are unfortunately too few. "A people seeking to live without perils is a people that may not live at all", writes Mr. l'Heureux. Our compatriot forgets his history. If he took the trouble to read it again, he would see that French Canada did face quite a few perils. Bravery should never lead to temerity. Today, what is asked of Quebec is not a proof of heroism but of cowardice, it is not to show courage but to betray . . .
Besides, one of the members of the Massey commission, Reverend Father Levesque himself warned French Canada in 1935 against the Ottawa government's present policy, when, dealing with the mission assigned to the French-Canadian intellectuals, he said that in the present state of affairs centralization was becoming a great danger for our ethnical group.
He may have changed his views since, but I assure you that the majority of French Canadians have not changed theirs.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is not only in the province of Quebec that people are worried about centralization in the field of education and by the granting of federal subsidies to Canadian universities.
The Winnipeg Free Press openly states that, sooner or later, parliament will decide to intervene, if only to ensure efficiency of management.
We also recall a speech by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who said, in 1950, that the dominion government should not interfere in matters of education, that its subsidies to provinces should be for general purposes and not specially earmarked for public education.
And even in the United States centralization in educational matters is being violently opposed.
In brief, if really the federal government wished to foster the development of the universities, the spread of culture,-since it would now seem that at this level education becomes culture,-all they have to do is to
94699-58J
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche hand back to the provinces those sources of revenue they have taken away from them. In this way, everybody would be satisfied. But this is not being done. Why? Because the true object of this federal strategy is not to help our universities but to interfere once more with provincial rights and prerogatives.
May I take up another point in the recommendations of the Massey commission? I speak now of the conclusions at which all the commissioners, with one exception, have arrived as regards radio broadcasting.
In short, the commission wants the C.B.C. to remain just as it is and what it is and, in addition, to wield a supreme and sovereign authority in the field of television.
If some day the Canadian National Railways were to force regulations upon the Canadian Pacific, people would surely and rightfully be shocked. Yet, every day, the C.B.C. competes with private stations while, at the same time, laying down regulations1 which these stations are required to comply with. In other words the C.B.C. is at once plaintiff and judge. The C.B.C. brings the charges and the C.B.C. also decides whether the accused is innocent or guilty. If there is any logic in that, the word is absolutely meaningless.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation exercises the most shameless of monopolies. All private radio stations are under its control and yet it also plays the part of a competitor. And now we are to have the same situation in the new field of television.
Yes, let us talk about television. Every country will soon have it, except Canada. Why? Because the C.B.C. is not ready. And yet, many private station-owners are ready to offer television programs at no cost to the public.
The Prime Minister has stated in the past that the socialists were after all nothing else but Liberals in a hurry. Well, in the radio field at least, it seems to me that the Liberals are as much in a hurry as the socialists. In any case, they offer us a radio system which is altogether socialist and socialistic in nature.
We recognize the necessity for a controlling and organizing body in the field of radio and television. But once more we declare that this body has no right to offer competition and we ask in what special capacity it can thus rule over radio and television.
Recently, a big scandal broke out in Canadian broadcasting. Was it a private station that had taken certain unwarranted liberties? No, it was the C.B.C., the supervisory

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche body, the supreme body that had been so inefficient, so ignorant, so bold as to grant time to speakers well-known for their antiChristian ideas, to allow lectures contrary to the mentality of any Christian people to be broadcast on their network.
Had the Moscow radio allowed a George Brock Chisholm, who blames all our evils on morals-the concept of good and evil-to air his views, we should not have been surprised. Should an atheistic country broadcast the remarks of a William Line, who considers the Catholic church and other such authorities as barriers to progress, we should have found it quite natural. But all this came to us through the C.B.C., through the official broadcasting organization of a Christian country.
It is on that same unworthy and inefficient organization that the Massey commission bestows all its blessings and urges it to go ahead not only in the field of radio but also in television.
After what has happened at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we cannot take seriously the Massey commission's recommendations on the subject of education, nor can we take seriously, I am sure, its recommendations on broadcasting.
We intend to oppose the measures that will be introduced in this house for the satisfaction of the C.B.C.'s ever-growing appetite and to let federal authorities interfere in the matter of education, which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Since 1944, 1,300 new schools of all kinds- rural, primary, high schools and specialized schools-have been built in the province of Quebec. We believe it would be a very great mistake for the dominion government to interfere when the provincial government has so devotedly fulfilled its duties in that sphere.
Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec, we do not want any change in the situation that prompted Mgr. Ferdinand Vandry, rector of Laval university, to say on August 12 last:
Nowhere else in the world-and I do mean just that-is a government more actively interested in the Christian education of youth than in the province of Quebec.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join in this debate, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. This debate is a rather unique feature of our
TMr. Courtemanche.]
national life in that it provides a sounding board for the ills as well as the good features within our country. It has run for a considerable length of time and we have heard about the troubles of the various parts of the country, as well as some of the good things that have taken place. Actually, it is a debate in which the opposition groups declare, by their amendments to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, what they believe to be the major trouble in the country. The opposition groups are apparently unanimous in stating that the cost of living and inflation is that main trouble. Most of the members on this side of the house are in agreement with that statement. We are not in agreement, however, on the methods of curing that trouble.
Previous to the opening of the session, members of the C.C.F. party stated that the government of the day should resign because it had failed to put in price controls. On that we do not agree. When an amendment to that effect was moved, we naturally thought they were going to bring up some rather heavy ammunition to support their claims. In my opinion, this has failed to materialize. As a matter of fact, since the opening of this debate we have had only one speech entirely dedicated to inflation and the cost of living, and that was delivered by the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), a supporter of the government. The stand of the C.C.F. on over-all control has been made quite clear, during both this session and the last. They wish controls on the primary products, particularly food, but no control on wages. This method affects the people in my riding who are mainly farmers, because it would control the price of their primary products while letting the cost of 70 per cent of what they have to buy, namely, wages, run wild.
This is nothing new so far as socialism is concerned. The basic principle of controlling primary products was adopted in Britain while the Labour government was in office. No farmer could take a steer into market and sell it for whatever was bid. He had to have a government official come out to see it, whether or not he knew anything about cattle.


Mr. Wrighi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. amendment concerning subsidies and controls has been voted upon. I do not believe the hon. member is in order in continuing the debate on that subject.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Does it hurt that much?


John Hornby Harrison: Apparently the hon. member is not interested in this part of my speech. He will like it even less as it goes along. In Saskatchewan we have controls on primary products, too. I have here a timber ticket from the Saskatchewan timber board which controls all the timber in the province of Saskatchewan. If you produce timber in that province you must deliver it to this board. While I was home during the recess I travelled 11,000 miles through the riding by car and by plane, and one of my constituents gave me this receipt for lumber delivered at Meadow Lake. This man brings this stuff in seventy-five miles; the last twenty-five miles into Meadow Lake is over a fair road but the first fifty miles is unbelievable. You have to see it to believe it. For this lumber delivered in Meadow Lake he obtains $32.60 per thousand feet, and he has to pile it in the government lumber yard there. They then plane it, and it costs $10 to plane, and make it into shiplap or whatever they require. Their net cost laid down in the yard is $42.60 for finished lumber. Then his neighbour who requires some lumber to build a house cannot buy it from him. He has to go into the government lumber yard and buy it, and he pays $96 a thousand for No. 2 shiplap and $99 a thousand for No. 1 shiplap.
In the 1945 election campaign I remember seeing in my riding posters put out by the C.C.F. party. Those posters said: People, not profits. Here is a profit of 135 per cent. I have to tell you that this timber board still loses money, with a profit of 135 per cent, for the simple reason that they have to make sure that this gentleman here at South Makwa, C. Turenne, does not deliver to his neighbour next door; and in case that checker might accept a few dollars to allow delivery, they have to have some checker checking him. The result is that the 135 per cent profit is dissipated; so far as the provincial coffers are concerned there is a dead loss. That is control of primary producers.
Their suggestion that we have over-all price controls does not meet with great favour in my part of the country because they have had this sort of thing locally. We have that situation also in fur. You have to deliver your fur to the government sales board in Regina. The whole thing is controlled in a manner similar to the way lumber is controlled. I would say that it is a good thing that wheat, coarse grains and dairy products, which are sold under federal auspices, are not controlled by the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government. But that is what that C.C.F. subamendment asks for.
But enough of controls. In my opinion their arguments to support their views have
The Address-Mr. Harrison been extremely weak in this debate. Along this line I should like to suggest at this time, with regard to the British people, they being in the position in which they now find themselves, with little money in the treasury and faced with a cut in the food ration-and this country, being possessed of large quantities of food; in the east we have cheese and dairy products and in the west we have cereals and grains-that some proposition should be worked out between the government of this country and Great Britain whereby we can supply the surpluses that we have today, on a deferred payment basis, if that is required, in order to maintain their standard of living over there.
I wish to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They set the theme of the debate, one referring to the development and expansion of the north and the other to the development and the expansion of the St. Lawrence waterway. With both those things I am in complete agreement. Certainly the people of Meadow Lake will support those measures.
We have considerable development occurring in the northern part of my riding, and I will come to that matter in just a minute or two. I wish to refer to something that was said the other day by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). I do not want to castigate him particularly, but I do not agree with his views when he said that we should put an embargo on meat going to the United States. On a local basis, that action might help the people in his riding, but it is not a good outlook for someone who should have a national outlook. I understand that the hon. member is national president of the young Conservatives association. Certainly he should raise his sights beyond his own riding. He also suggested that we buy meat in the Argentine, in the cheapest possible market. I do not agree with that view, because, if that idea was carried to its logical conclusion throughout the country, we would be buying most of our manufactured products from Japan, throwing our own people out of work. Certainly the thing we must look out for is balance in our economy. We want good wages in industrial areas and we need good prices for farm products. In other words, we must be more national in our outlook.
To come to the theme of the throne speech debate, first we have the St. Lawrence seaway and power development which will cost approximately $1 billion for both the seaway and the power development; the Saskatchewan dam, irrigation and power project which is to
910	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harrison cost about $100 million; and the Canso causeway in Cape Breton which is estimated to cost about $23 million. There is no reason why we cannot go ahead with those projects, and I will tell you why. There is in my riding enough potential production of mineral wealth to pay for the whole thing inside of ten or fifteen years. If any of you have read Maclean's magazine of October 15, you will find an article there by B. T. Richardson entitled "The Hottest Square Mile in the World." This is north of lake Athabasca, ait Beaverlodge lake, about five miles north of Goldfields. It is one of the hottest portions of the world in uranium content. It was discovered in 1946 by Phil St. Louis. It is mainly at that particular point where there is a break in the earth's crust which has since been named the St. Louis fault. This is encountered over an area of about ten square miles, and occurred some millions of years ago in our history when the earth erupted at that point and poured forth the product that we now call uranium. I have here a piece of ore from that area. It comes in sandstone rock and was first detected, as some hon. members may recall, by the yellow colour on the outside. In fact, that is the way La Bine first found the first uranium in this country at Great Bear lake, from the golden colour that you see there, caused by the metal oxidizing on the outside. This piece is half an inch wide and is just good for display work. In paying quantities it must be much thicker than that. But this is first-class uranium, what there is of it, and it occurs in this St. Louis fault in wide veins. In 1949 the federal government went in there to develop the St. Louis fault, and started what they call the Ace mine. By the time this comes into production in 1953-they expect to be in production on January 1, 1953-the federal government will have spent about $8 million on the project. They have sunk one shaft, the Fay shaft-it was named after the girl friend of one of the boys who worked there originally- to a distance of 400 or 500 feet, and four levels have been put in. The levels run all the way from 3 feet wide to 15 feet wide in the uranium seam with a length of 330 feet. The ore runs from $34 to $417 a ton in that one particular shaft. There are four shafts under development, and one of them is expected to be better than the Fay shaft. I should tell you something about this Fay shaft. In the first year of operation it expects to put out 500 tons a day. They are to put in the concentrator next year to handle the ore, the concentrates being shipped down here. That Fay shaft from its first level and at 500 tons per day production will produce $9 million the first year of its operation. It has been set for a production of 2,000 tons a day, 

and that will amount to $40 million a year for that one shaft alone. When all four shafts get into operation-two of them are expected to exceed the value of the Fay-we should have in excess of $150 million a year from this one operation alone. This amount will be paid directly into government coffers, since it belongs to the federal government, and it will realize that amount of United States dollars for the country.
When this mine gets into full operation, ten or fifteen years production will be more than enough from this one mine to pay for all the projects that have been asked for and mentioned in the speech from the throne, namely, the Canso causeway and the Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project as well as the St. Lawrence seaway. If we can do that from the production of one small riding of Canada, what have we to fear in going ahead with a matter of this kind?
At the present time transportation into that area runs up the Athabasca river from the head of steel at Waterways, and that is run by the Northern Transportation Company which is a subsidiary of Eldorado Mining and Refining, and they run even to lake Athabasca and serve all the ports on the north side of it, including Goldfields in the Ace lake area.
Last year the federal government put an airport in there. I was in there about six weeks ago on my annual trip around the north country. Over a year ago I looked over the land and wondered where they would build the airport in that district. It is very mountainous and rocky. Yet they have a lovely airport there that can be used by seaplanes as well, as it runs right down to Ace lake which is used by aeroplanes there -even the largest land aircraft can land and use it.
In addition to the output in that part of the country, which comes down this waterway route, we should have in the not too distant future a continuation of the line now running to Lynn Lake. Ini my opinion that should be continued along the north end of Reindeer lake and Wollaston lake and Black lake, and around the north shore of lake Athabasca, which would take you past Stony Rapids to the most concentrated' uranium ore there is in Canada at Beaverlodge lake.
There is also a development of uranium at lake Charlebois, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Helme). It is not as far advanced as at Beaverlodge. This will have to be tapped in the course of time. I do not think we shall live too long before we see that the PreCambrian shield will have to be developed in

that area by the continuation of the line that has now been put into Lynn Lake.


Howard Charles Green: How many miles would that be?


John Hornby Harrison: About 300 miles. In addition to the mineral wealth in my riding, which I frankly say can pay for all the development that this country requires, both in the east and in the west, at the present time, we also have a large production of agricultural products. Meadow Lake town is the largest inland receiver of grain on the North American continent. About 4 million bushels of grain will be marketed there this year. The whole agricultural area of the riding of Meadow Lake will this year produce about 20 million bushels of grain. This, together with the cattle, hogs and dairy products, will bring this year's contribution to the national income to about $40 million, excluding the minerals. That is not exactly a small contribution. Therefore we should have no hesitancy in going ahead with the projects I outlined. In other words, let us have an end to parochial looking at the national situation. Let us look at it in a national way. Let us construct these projects forthwith. Meadow Lake, the greatest riding in the country, Meadow Lake, the nuclear heart of the nation, will pay the whole bill.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to support the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) in his amendment to the amendment. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved a motion in the house the other day on the same subject and you, Mr. Speaker, said at that time that it could be discussed on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia on taking this opportunity again to bring before the house the plight of our veterans. I do not think it is necessary that I should go into all the details again. The last time I spoke in the house I said that the veterans' request was a reasonable one when they asked that single burnt-out men should have their pension increased from $40 to $50 and married men to $100. I was disappointed this afternoon to hear the minister's answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who asked about the representations which had been made by the different legions regarding something being done about the pension. I feel quite sure that the minister's answer will be a keen disappointment to the veterans organizations which have asked us to try to get some action to consider the plight of the veterans at this time. Even yet I hope that the government will see
The Address-Mr. Bryce fit to bring down some legislation during this session-and I mean this session-to give these veterans some relief, as the cost of living still continues to go up, and makes it very difficult for not only the veterans but anyone who is on a fixed income to live like an ordinary human being.
When speaking a couple of weeks ago I asked that an inquiry be held into the sale and distribution of meat. I tried to show how the people in the low-income brackets were subsidizing the people in the high-income brackets. At that time I said that I did not have sufficient time to deal with pork, and I should like to do so now. The recent drop in hog prices has not been of any benefit to the consumer and certainly has been a great loss to the producer. Perhaps at this time I should review the marketing of hogs over the last twenty-five years. The Manitoba Co-operator of November 1, 1951, contained an editorial entitled "The Butcher's Boy", which reads as follows:
For some years past packing companies and many PSV truckers in Manitoba as well as in other parts of Canada have been working hand in hand to destroy the farmer's bargaining power in marketing his livestock.
By "under the counter handouts" of bonuses to truckers the packers have wooed deliveries away from public markets. Fifty cents per hog bonus on a truckload of one hundred hogs or more is a good days pay for a trucker. Or when these same hogs could quite often be sold for as much as two dollars per cwt. more at a public market this is a poor deal for the unsuspecting farmer.
And again:
Unfortunately prairie farmers too often listen to the freely given advice of some truckers on marketing livestock. These men are essentially haulers of groceries and know little or nothing about livestock marketing problems. Just so long as the truckers can persuade the farmer to let him unload the livestock at the packer's back door so that he can collect his fifty cents per hog bonus, and goodness knows how much per head for cattle, he is little concerned with the size of the farmer's cheque.
I remember when I took my hogs to Winnipeg by team twenty-five years ago to sell them at the stockyards, I would be met by half a dozen buyers a few miles from the stockyards' gate. They would be bidding for my hogs before I got to the stockyards. Then we had deliveries by trucks, which has increased. The tendency of truckers is to deliver to the packer's gate. Sometimes the farmers wonder why the truckers are so anxious to patronize the packers and ignore the public stockyard where you can still see some signs of competition in the purchasing of livestock. In many cases the trucker is not the best man to sell livestock as he is not a livestock salesman. Hence the return to the farmer from his livestock was not as good as it might have been.



S12 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bryce
Perhaps the other provinces will consider copying the procedure followed by Alberta and Ontario in selling livestock by public auction and in that way get some competition in the marketing of livestock. These troubles are aggravated by the system we have today of compulsory hog rail grading. I want to make it perfectly clear to hon. members and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who I believe knows this perfectly well, that I am not against hog grading. This system has done a wonderful job in improving the bacon hog.
James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is referring to rail grading.


William Scottie Bryce: My complaint is that it is definitely in the hands of the packers. I am quite sure that 90 per cent of hogs are delivered to the packer's gate with perhaps 10 per cent reaching the public stockyards. When the packer has 90 per cent of the hogs delivered to his plant he is not interested in the other 10 per cent going to the public market. He can practically pay what he likes, no doubt in agreement with the other packers.
The argument has always been used that hogs are permitted to stand around the stockyards resulting in a certain amount of shrinkage, and another argument advanced is that when they are sent in from some distance there is a feed bill. The farmer has always wanted to avoid both these situations, but at the same time when he delivers direct to the packer's gate by truck he loses all the competition in the sale of his hogs that he ever had. Today farmers have nothing to say about the price they will receive for their hogs. They are just loaded up at the farm, delivered to the packer's gate, and the farmer waits at home until the cheque comes. If the cheque or the grade is not satisfactory, what can he do about it? He can do absolutely nothing. The farmer has to take it and like it.
While the consumer is paying high prices for pork and in many cases blaming the farmer for making too much money, the fact is that the farmer has not been getting more for his hog. Here are the monthly averages at Toronto and Winnipeg markets:
Toronto Winnipeg
July 			$37.75
August 			36.52
September 	
32.65	32.75October 	
29.88	28.95Last week 	
29.75	28.00
It should be noted that I am referring to only grade A hogs which is the top of twelve grades. These twelve grades sell on the Winnipeg market from $28 down to No. 2 sows at $19.50.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why does not the hon. member start quoting prices in March instead of July?


William Scottie Bryce: Because these figures suit me. I am only learning from-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister, yes. I have great respect for the minister but I repeat that he is a bom orator and can make the other fellow think that black is white. I am trying to do the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Selkirk is honest about it.


William Scottie Bryce: For the information of hon. members who are not interested in hogs but who might like to read something about them and perhaps appreciate that there is considerable logic in what I am putting on the record, I should like to give the latest Winnipeg prices for the different grades, as
follows:
A	 $28.00
B 1	 27.60
B 2	 27.35
B 3	 26.75
C	 26.50
D	 26.00
Lights	 27.00
Heavies	 26.00
Extra heavies	 19.50
No. 1 sows	 20.50
No. 2 sows	 19.50
Feeders	 20.00
At least ten of those grades go into the domestic trade. The minister may want to remind me that there is a floor price for hogs. I know there is a floor price of $32.50, but that is for Wiltshire sides, not for hogs. The Wiltshire side is not the complete hog and the price paid for the hog on the basis of this price of $32.50 differs with the technical efficiency of the packer who buys the hog. The great complaint is about the drop in the price of hogs and the rise in the prices of pork products. Hogs are scarcer and fewer are coming to market. Hog marketings in the first quarter of this year amounted to 1,201,304, in the second quarter 1,190,499 and in the third quarter 953,273. Fewer hogs are coming to market and yet the price to the producer is lower and the price to the consumer is higher. If I were to quote the figures the minister wanted me to quote it would make the situation look worse still. It certainly upsets the argument about the law of supply and demand. With fewer hogs coming to market, lower prices to the producer and higher prices to the consumer, surely everyone will agree it is high time that we had an investigation into the prices and trade practices of the meat industry.
The fluctuation in hog prices this year has been very bad, with a difference of $10 per

hundredweight in 120 days, while in the United States hogs have only varied $3 per hundredweight in a year. In the Winnipeg Tribune-


James Garfield Gardiner: During all of which time they have been lower than ours.


William Scottie Bryce: The processor in Minneapolis was buying our hogs, processing them and selling on the Winnipeg market at cheaper prices than the local packers. It is no argument to point out how cheap they were in the United States. We can send them there and get more for them. We would never have sent them there if we could not get more for them. The minister knows we have the best bacon hogs in the world. I will have something more to say about that later on. There was an article in the Winnipeg Tribune concerning rising prices and they compared the price of pork chops in Minneapolis and Winnipeg. The price in Minneapolis was 51 cents a pound and in Winnipeg 68 cents a pound, where the hogs were raised. I also have an article from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 5, 1951, with the heading, "Pork Chops So Popular Price High". The article reads:
Pork chops are now selling here at 10 to 14 cents per pound more than they were two months ago when hogs were bringing $10 more than today's market price. The explanation, according to both packers and retailers-the volume of supply and the extent of the demand for certain cuts or part of the carcass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sounds crazy to me.


William Scottie Bryce: Here you have the same thing happening as I pointed out in connection with beef. You have the housewife in the low income bracket buying the cheaper cuts and subsidizing the housewife in the higher income bracket who wants the better cuts, including loin pork. It has been shown that the drop of $10 per 100 pounds never made any difference to the consumer. I know that the storage position of pork products was extremely low. I also know that there was very little imported pork in Canada, and realizing that there was a very strong consumer demand, with pork marketings up to that date in 1951 below the same period a year ago, I am strongly of the opinion that some understanding must have been arrived at among the larger Canadian packers to depress hog prices drastically. Inasmuch as right across Canada there was an identical depression by the big packers, I along with many other farmers felt that this could not possibly occur without some understanding between Canadian packing plants. The drop in prices may have been caused by the anticipation of the packers of a sharp increase in hog marketings, or it may be that the freezers were empty and needed refilling.
The Address-Mr. Bryce When controlled prices were taken off in 1947, the packers immediately raised prices to the wholesalers although the packers' freezers were full of meat, both beef and pork, bought under ceiling prices. They argued then that they needed this profit as they would take a loss when prices went down. At that time it was estimated that the packers made $4-3 million. I have here the report of the royal commission on prices, and I should like to refer to page 98 of volume 3, where it reads:
Three large packing firms and Wilsil, among themselves, held over two-thirds of the total holdings of beef and pork. Although Canada Packers held 14-8 million pounds of pork, only 1.5 millions were for the account of the meat board and the firm would stand to make very substantial inventory gains on over 13 million pounds. Although this firm held 10-1 million pounds of beef, only 2-2 million pounds were held for the meat board and for customers; the firm would sell the remainder at the higher prices prevailing after January 1. Burns and Company held a similar small proportion of their total pork inventory for the meat board. If the other firms were holding as small a part of their total inventories for the meat board as were Canada Packers, they all made substantial profits on their holdings of beef and pork.
Then there is a passage on page 100 of the same volume which reads as follows:
The three largest packing firms in Canada submitted accounts to the special committee which showed that they made a combined net profit of $4 [DOT] 3 million in the four months following the simultaneous removal of price controls on meats and the settlement of the packing house workers' strike in late October, 1947. Market conditions following the strike probably had greater effect on these profits than the removal of controls. Profits for the corresponding period in 1946-47 were less than $1 million. Those firms owning beef and pork in cold storage at the end of 1947 made substantial fortuitous gains as a result of inventory appreciation, as market prices advanced with the increased United Kingdom contract prices. No such inventory profits were made on meat consigned to the meat board. Although complete data on the quantity of such consignments were not furnished to the special committee, the information available indicates that it was a very small percentage of total holdings. The four firms, Canada Packers, Swift Canadian, Burns and Wilsil held over two-thirds of the total cold storage stocks. The inventories of beef as of January 1, 1948, were at record levels; those of pork, while not a record, were relatively large.
Packers' net profits may be only a fraction of a cent per pound, but because of their extremely large volume, these profits may be a high percentage of the capital invested in the firm. One firm submitting accounts to the special committee made net profits in excess of 23 per cent of its capital investment during its fiscal year ending in March, 1948. Firms tend to disguise these high profits in their annual reports by making such deductions as corporation income taxes, additions to "inventory reserves" and bonuses to employees before calculation of "net" profits. However, it is still a fair statement that, even by taking no profits during late 1947 and early 1948, packers could not have made any great contribution towards lowering the price of meat to consumers.

The Address-Mr. Bryce
On page 104 there is another quotation which reads as follows:
There is evidence to indicate that the buying and selling prices of the smaller firms are patterned upon those of the larger firms. There is competition among the larger packing firms but it is not "perfect" competition, such as prevails in the primary livestock industry or in the retail industry. Farmers and retailers are able to exert little or no influence upon the price which they receive for their products in open markets . . . Although the combined margins taken by meat processors, distributors and retailers normally amount to upwards of 50 per cent of the retail value of this meat, relatively little research has been undertaken in Canada on ways of reducing these marketing costs.
A convenient place to start would be in calculating the farmers' share of the consumer's dollar for some, at least, of the more important farm products.
In the recent drop of $10 per 100 pounds, the producer is taking a loss of $15 per hog and the consumer still pays the same. It was during the Martin prices committee that we heard one of the prominent Canadian packers say, "We buy cattle as cheaply as we can and we sell beef for as much as we can get". With a code like that, what justice can the producer or consumer expect? Everyone knows the packing companies must make profits or go out of business. You will note there is no consideration of a fair price to the producer or a reasonable price to the consumer. Both producer and consumer are of no concern to the packers, but the packer seems unable to distinguish between fair profit and plunder and, unfortunately, does not care either.
Today the farmer is convinced that he is not getting enough for his hogs, when you take into consideration the price of feed. On the other hand, the consumer is being asked to pay prices he cannot afford. Drops in price similar to what the hog raiser has just experienced-a drop of 25 per cent in 120 days-will never build up the hog industry or inspire confidence in the farmer to keep hogs. The situation is now so bad that I think the only remedy is the establishment of provincial marketing boards for hogs and have a central selling agency. If the farmer or hog raiser wants to remain an independent person and maintain his place in society instead of a slave of the packing industry, he must handle his own business. The handling of farm produce by farmer co-operatives has been successful in Canada and many other countries. Marketing hogs and controlling them until they reach the retailer will help not only the farmer but also the consumer who will have a product at a steady price.
We all know what Canada can do when she makes up her mind, whether it is in connection with producing pork or anything else. I have been fortunate in visiting other countries and examining the conditions under which bacon is produced. I saw and have

tasted Australian, British, Dutch, French, Irish, New Zealand and American bacon, and I am still convinced that the Canadian bacon is best. When we have conditions and feed that can produce bacon better than anyone else, it should be encouraged. First, the hog producer must set up his own marketing machinery under a marketing board. Then, in co-operation with other provinces, have a central selling agency.
In closing I want to appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to have an investigation into the sale of meat, both beef and pork, under the Combines Investigation Act. I think it is long overdue. Conditions are deplorable.
I would also ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to establish forward prices for hogs, say for the next three years or less if he likes, based on the cost of production. I would suggest that the next time a price is set, it should be on the hog and not on Wiltshire sides as it is at present. A forward price guaranteed by the government would give stability to the industry and confidence to the farmer, and use a lot of low grade grain.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words at this time. I took the opportunity to speak on the main motion, and at this time I shall confine my remarks to the amendment of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). May I add that this would seem to be a most appropriate time to discuss the amendment, coming as it does immediately after Armistice day which, we all know, was yesterday. At that time the minds of all of us were turned to the sacrifices made by our men and women in two wars.
At the outset let me say that I concur fully in the amendment offered by the hon. member. It is in these words:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."
The word "regret" is a mild one indeed, when used to express the feelings of many hon. members in the House of Commons and, I am sure, of the great majority of people in Canada. I have no doubt that the veterans themselves were greatly disappointed when some provision was not made to look after the interests of the recipients of war veterans allowances at this session of parliament.
It is not necessary for me to discuss the matter at great length, because my views, as well as those of my leader and our party, are well known on the subject. It will be recalled that last session when the motion was

before the house to set up the committee on veterans affairs, and when the terms of reference were made known, I realized at once that matters connected with war veterans allowances would not be considered. With that in mind I offered an amendment whereby the war veterans allowances would be included as a subject for discussion in the terms of reference. Unfortunately, however, my suggestion was turned down at that time.
During the different sittings of the committee we repeatedly asked that the terms of reference be referred back to the house so that they might be broadened, and thus afford an opportunity for discussion of this very important subject. This did not meet with the approval of the majority of members on the committee, and again the matter was pushed to one side.
At the beginning of this session I asked again that a special committee be set up so that we might discuss not only war veterans allowances but other matters concerning war veterans. However, the government did not see fit to accept this suggestion. Might I add that this serves only to emphasize to me, as it has on many other occasions, the great necessity for having a permanent committee on veterans affairs. I have urged this repeatedly over the years I have been here. The necessity for such a committee must appear obvious to all hon. members, because there is not a year in which some matter of great concern to veterans is not brought up, and should be made the subject of discussion before a veterans committee.
Since 1936, when I first came here, we have had a great many committees. To my mind a permanent committee on veterans affairs is a necessity. Why do we say the matter should be discussed at this session? Surely the reason must be obvious to everyone. Surely there should be no doubt as to why grants to war veterans should be increased. One need scarcely refer to the great increase in the cost of living. It is not necessary to point out to the house the inadequacy of the small amount being paid to these men to meet even ordinary subsistence. In our country it is much easier for the men to get along on a small amount during the summer months, but when they are faced with a long, cold winter the necessity for an increase in their allowance becomes more urgent, and certainly must be more evident to all members of this house.
Again, there is the question of a ceiling on the amount that single and married war veterans are allowed under the War Veterans Allowance Act. If the amount these men were allowed to earn were raised, even though their war veterans allowances were
The Address-Mr. Brooks not increased, it would be some improvement. They are handicapped in every way. As I say, I am sure that the reason for increasing war veterans allowances must be obvious, and must appeal to all members of this house. Among the many considerations that would probably come before a war veterans committee, if it were set up, is the subject of the grant to war veterans who served only in England. This question has been discussed time and time again. Up to now those men who served on Salisbury Plain have received no consideration. Anyone who knows anything about the first war realizes that the winter those men put in there was as difficult as many of the hardships faced by the men at the front.
The nurses who served in the large hospitals in England during the first war, who today are advanced in age, have received no consideration. They were not allowed to go out of England. We know that there were hospitals in England and hospitals in France. Many of these nurses were told that their service was in England, and they had to stay there. The nurses who went across the channel to France, and served in the back areas there, are entitled to receive war veterans allowances, whereas the nurses who served in England are not. There is no reason why these two groups should not receive the same treatment. I could go on and quote instance after instance, Mr. Speaker, but it is not my intention to do so.
I should like now to quote briefly from the brief submitted to the federal cabinet by the dominion executive council of the Canadian Legion, which met in Ottawa last week. This brief is dated November 9, 1951. This is what the representative of the Legion, representing many hundred thousands of returned men across Canada, has to say with reference to these war veterans allowances:
This means unless some emergency measures are taken that many recipients of war veterans allowance will be facing a very grim winter.
I have mentioned that.
. . . Retroactive legislation passed next spring cannot feed and clothe and keep them warm this winter.
They are pointing out that even though the government may increase the war veterans allowance next spring and make it retroactive, that is not going to do these men any good this winter. The brief goes on to say:
We feel that something should be done to ease the situation and would suggest as an emergency provision that the present supplementary grant be increased and its basis so broadened that it be granted without a means test to all those living on W.V.A. This could be done, we believe, by an administrative directive and would not require new legislation.

The Address-Mr. Brooks
They have suggested to the government a means of solving this problem easily. I believe it is the duty and responsibility of the government, if they are not going to increase the war veterans allowance at this session, to adopt the suggestion of the Legion as expressed in this brief.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is to receive consideration during this session. It is to be dealt with without reference to a veterans affairs committee. We will not know how it will be dealt with until the legislation is brought before this house. The last issue of The Legionary, November 19, 1951, in an editorial entitled "Pension Increases on the Way", mention the fact that a letter was received by the dominion president of the Canadian Legion, Mr. Watts, from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), which stated:
The government's decision, arrived at after a great deal of thought, was that basic rates under the Pension Act should be revised-
Now, that is a very surprising statement, Mr. Speaker, that the government should have to take a great deal of thought to arrive at a decision that the basic rates of pension should be increased. This was obvious to every returned soldier across this country, and I believe to the great majority of people. It would not have been necessary for the people of Canada to take a great deal of thought to come to that conclusion. I am surprised that the minister makes such a statement. The letter continues:
-and I am glad to be able to inform you that I propose to introduce at this fall session the necessary legislation to implement the government's decision.
We are all glad to know that this consideration has been given. There is one point about which we are a little dubious, and that is whether the consideration will be such as will meet the requirements of the veterans. I was concerned, too, after reading a headline in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday which stated, "Rise in veterans' basic pension expected to be 15 to 20 per cent."


Stanley Howard Knowles: They had better give it some
more thought.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As the hon. member says,
they had better give it some more thought. The minister is not in his seat, and what the basis for the item in the Gazette is, I do not know. I want to say to the government that a 15 or 20 per cent increase is not enough. If they are only considering an increase of that amount, they are not doing justice to the veterans nor to themselves.
It is not necessary, as I have said on other occasions, to point out the two norms upon which the soldiers' pensions in this country
fMr. Brooks.]
were based. The first one was the cost of living in 1925 or 1926, and the other was the rate of ordinary wages at that time. The pensioner received one increase of 25 per cent in 1948. Since 1939 the cost of living in this country has increased about 190 per cent, and the wages paid ordinary labour in this country 260 per cent. In all reason, Mr. Speaker, if the pensions of veterans are based on those norms, how can this government justify an increase of only 15 or 20 per cent? How can this government justify themselves if they should only offer the pensioners an increase now from 15 per cent to 20 per cent? I hope that it is not true.
In his letter quoted in The Legionary the minister also mentioned the war veterans allowance, and I should like to quote from it: It was agreed, however, that a parliamentary committee on veterans affairs should be set up as early as possible after the 1952 session opens in order to deal with this act. Changes subsequently could be made retroactive to the first of January, 1952, which is the general date for the putting into effect of the provisions of the new Old Age Security and Old Age Assistance acts.
What I wish you to follow carefully, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of the editor in regard to that statement, and I quote his remarks: It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to have a parliamentary committee set up to deal with war veterans allowance during the current fall session so that the increase, whatever it may be, could have helped to tide the recipients over the coming winter months when expenses are heaviest. The government having announced its decision, however, The Legionary can only express the fervent hope, which it feels sure all ex-servicemen and women will share, that when the amount of the increase is determined, it will be sufficient to enable these gallant old defenders of Canada's freedom to spend their remaining years in reasonable comfort, free from the fear of want or outright poverty. Nothing less than that will satisfy their younger or more fortunately placed comrades- nor, we firmly believe, the citizens of this country generally.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention an article or an advertisement which I saw in the Ottawa Journal a few days ago. It was a request for the purchase of poppies. The wording of this request appealed to me and I think it outlines extremely well the situation of the disabled veteran. I have one objection to the advertisement, if I may call it such. In it there is a picture of our war memorial at the top and it is called "the Ottawa war memorial". I am not going to quarrel greatly with that wording, but I would point out that this war memorial, of which we across Canada are all so proud, is not Ottawa's war memorial but is the national war memorial of Canada. We all across Canada helped to contribute towards its cost and, as I say, we are all extremely

proud of it. Personally, I think it is a beautiful memorial. Underneath the picture the wording in the advertisement is as follows: Standing silently amid the tumult of the busy streets, the Ottawa war memorial is a tribute to those who gave their lives on the field of battle . . . day after day it stands as a silent reminder of Canadian valour and heroism . . . daily our busy lives surge back and forth with scarcely a thought for the disabled veterans, many suffering a lifetime of pain, but all struggling for existence in this world they fought to free from oppression.
The words which particularly appealed to me, Mr. Speaker, were: "but all struggling for existence". Surely those men are entitled to more than a bare existence. That is one of the reasons why I rose in my place this afternoon to appeal to the government to do something now-for I believe it could be done -for these men who are recipients of war veterans allowance. Do not wait until next session or until next year, 1952. With this cold, hard winter before us, these men need this help now; and I think it is unfair, unjust and unnecessary to defer action at this time. There is still plenty of time during this session; and I believe that some legislation can be enacted or that something can be done by the government so that these men will be placed in the position in which I feel they should be placed.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate for just a few minutes this afternoon, I should like at the outset to express my pleasure in associating with other hon. members who have expressed gratification with regard to the reports we get of the improvement in His Majesty's health. I should also like to join with others who have spoken about the visit of Her Royal Highness and the Duke of Edinburgh. In connection with their trip throughout our land, I should like to pay tribute to the radio, to the camera men and also to the press. Had it not been for the radio, the films and the press there are hundreds of thousands of our people who would not have had such a good opportunity to see Her Royal Highness and the Duke of Edinburgh, to hear their voices or to read what they said. I wish to compliment these organizations for the grand job they did in connection with the tour.
Their Royal Highnesses made a short trip across the line into the country of our great neighbour, and visited the President of the United States. On their short visit they took time out to journey out to Mount Vernon and to Arlington cemetery, to lay a wreath upon the tomb of George Washington and the Unknown American Soldier. I would say
The Address-Mr. Bater that, on that trip, they were truly commonwealth ambassadors of good will and understanding.
I should like to associate myself with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, with which I am quite in accord. The mover covered considerable territory, and I was in agreement with him in his remarks about the great role played by our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in bringing about the relations existing within our nation and also the great effort he has made to bring about international peace.
The seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), in a splendid way described the north country, which he so ably represents. In the interval between the two sessions I was privileged to attend the official opening of the St. Mary dam, which is some thirty-five or forty miles south of Lethbridge. The dam was officially opened by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). On that occasion I was pleased to meet a few people from eastern Canada. I will mention two or three of them: Mr. McCubbin, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture; Mr. McLean, president of Canada Packers; and Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think it looked well when these men took such a great interest in that project that they would journey out to witness the official opening.
Speaking of the St. Mary dam of course recalls to my mind the South Saskatchewan dam, the opening of which I hope I shall have the privilege of attending in the near future. The mover of the address in reply mentioned that project. I would suggest that all members of this house and all members of all governments at all levels in Canada look at these projects-the St. Lawrence seaway, the Canso bridge, the South Saskatchewan project and any others that might be contemplated-not through the dim glasses of sectionalism or provincialism but through the brighter lenses of nationalism.
I should like to say a word or two in connection with something that has given us in western Canada a great deal of concern in the past few months. I refer to grain storage. The system of harvesting in western Canada, and particularly in Saskatchewan, is different from what it used to be. Because of the shortage of farm labour and the bringing in of the swather and the combine, the system of harvesting our crops 'has undergone quite a transformation. I think it is here to stay for quite some time. With this new method of harvesting has come about con-

The Address-Mr. Bater siderably more tough grain. More tough grain is being brought into the elevators than we used to have when we harvested with the binder in the old days. I would suggest that throughout western Canada more drying facilities should be installed, more internal storage facilities. In connection with internal storage facilities, I hold in my hand a memorandum which I should like to place on Hansard. I will not take the time to read it, but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have it included in my remarks. It is entitled: "Memorandum re grain handling in northwestern Saskatchewan".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bater:: The memorandum is as follows:
Memorandum re Grain Handling in Northwestern Saskatchewan
Practically every fall prior to the last few drought years and again in the year 1939 farmers of northwestern Saskatchewan have been faced with the problem of congestion of grain and with embargoes. Railway officials have done everything possible with the facilities at their disposal to cope with the situation and conditions have been relieved from time to time, but the opinion is strongly held that a more permanent remedy should be effected and that storage facilities should be established at a nearby central point in order that grain can be expeditiously moved from country elevators to an internal storage elevator during the threshing season.
In the southern part of the province harvest is usually two to three weeks earlier than in the northern part, with the result that when the bulk of the crop in the north is ready to be moved congestion and car shortage have already developed.
Modern methods of harvesting have speeded up delivery of grain to such an extent that it is impossible for the railways to move the grain to the head of the lakes and other ports as fast as the farmers deliver it to the country elevators. Now that the Hudson bay route is in operation it is desirable that the larger portion of the crop be retained within the province, in order that exporters may have the option of moving the grain to any one of the three chief grain routes. As North Battle-ford, in addition to being the logical centre to serve north-western Saskatchewan, is the most centrally located city in western Canada from a railway standpoint, being 1005 miles from the head of the lakes, 1017 miles from Vancouver and 883 miles from Churchill, it would be a decided advantage to exporters to have grain stored here, as it could then be forwarded to any one of three ports without incurring the expense of a back-haul.
In addition there are delivered to country elevators large quantities of coarse grains (particularly oats which are raised extensively between North Battle-ford and the Alberta boundary) for which the principal market is within the province and it is desirable that such grains should be stored as near to the area of production as possible, in order that they may be delivered economically to the purchaser.
Another important consideration is that of retaining in the district the by-products of the internal storage elevators, thereby making available to farmers a larger quantity of cheap feed.

The city of North Battleford is well served by railways and highways from all parts of northwestern Saskatchewan. The railways which converge here are as follows:
Canadian National Railways
(a)	From Radisson in the southeast.
(b)	From Lloydminster, west-northwest.
(c)	From St. Walburg and Frenchman Butte in the northwest.
(d)	From Medstead, north.
(e)	Loop line via Rabbit Lake and Speers.
(f)	From Blaine Lake, northeast.
(g)	From Biggar, south.
(h)	From Carruthers, west.
Canadian Pacific Railway
(a)	From Meadow Lake in the north.
(b)	From Ravenhead and Redfield, north-east.
(c)	From Marsden and Cut Knife, west.
(d)	From Wilkie, south-west.
The highways leading into North Battleford are:
(a)	No. 4-from the north and south.
(b)	No. 5-from the south-east and west-northwest.
(c)	No. 26-from the north-west.
(d)	No. 29-from the south-west.
(e)	No. 40-from the west and from the northeast.
Much of the agricultural development of recent years in Saskatchewan has been north and northwest of the city of North Battleford. According to the 1936 census the population between 1931 and 1936 in what is described as the "prairie" portion of Saskatchewan decreased by 7-8 per cent, while the population in what is described as the "park" portion of the province increased by 10-8 per cent, the larger population now being in the "park" portion, namely, 483,090, as against 447,887 in the "prairie" portion. In the North Battleford federal riding the population increased from 41,513 in 1931 to 55,350 in 1936, an increase of 33-33 per cent. In The Battlefords federal riding in the same period the population increased from 45,064 to 48,913, an increase of 8-54 per cent. The movement to the north is still in progress.
Agricultural development extends many more miles farther north on the west side of the province than on the east side and the need of more facilities for handling grain in the north-west is very urgent.
As the Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal Minister of Agriculture is reported to have stated on April 24th, 1940, at Melville, Sask., "that 1940 would be one of the toughest years in history for disposing of agricultural surpluses," this would appear to be an added reason for erecting an internal storage elevator at North Battleford in which to store some of the surplus grains of the north-west part of Saskatchewan.
The city of North Battleford serves a sufficiently large territory to warrant the erection of an internal storage elevator of three to five million bushels capacity. It is estimated that even in years of light delivery an interval storage elevator of the size stated would be used to full capacity, and there is every indication that such an elevator would be self-supporting.
A suitable site on trackage would be available at reasonable cost. Electrical energy and adequate supply of good water would be available at favourable rates. In the event of a pipe line being installed to supply North Battleford with natural gas from Lloydminster (which is probable) or other natural gas fields which may be subsequently developed a very cheap supply of power would be available and there would be a tendency to lower the already low cost of providing electrical energy.

The time is ripe for something to be done in northwestern Saskatchewan in this connection. The point I have in mind is North Battleford. This memorandum touches on that, but I will not take up the time to go into all the details.
Again this fall western agriculture suffered a severe blow. We had a good crop. We grew a crop, but because of a large amount of rain and snow we were not able to harvest it. Many farmers have the bulk of their crops under the snow yet, and perhaps it will be there until next spring. This calamity struck not only the grain grower in western Canada but also the farmers who are active in diversified farming. I mean those engaged in mixed farming. The weather caught many of them with their cattle feed out under the snow. Because of that they were not able to turn their cattle out on the stubble as in normal times, and consequently they have had to dispose of a considerable number of their cattle.
Speaking of cattle, I should like to concur in what the bon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) had to say about cattle. I was surprised to hear one hon. member suggest that one of the things that he thought should be done to ease inflation in our country was to prohibit the exportation of cattle to the United States. In that connection I should like to quote something that I quoted before coming in this house. To him I would say this:
We should abandon the fallacy which teaches that we can become prosperous by limiting production and restricting trade, because political co-operation and economic isolation cannot exist side by side.
This does' not involve some new and untried scheme of social relationship or fantastic economic theory; it is simply the removal of those artificial barriers between men and nations that have been at the root of all our international differences, and the restoration, to all the people, of that most valuable privilege of organized society-the right to trade freely with one another. Freedom of trade and intercourse between men and nations go hand in hand with understanding and goodwill, and provides the only way in which all can be assured that equality of opportunity that should be the inherent right of citizenship.
With respect to those out west who have been caught with their crops under the snow, I hope and urge that the government do something to relieve the situation. It can be truly said that the farmers of the western provinces are possibly the most vulnerable primary producers in the Dominion of Canada. Not only are we vulnerable so far as weather conditions are concerned, but we are also vulnerable in our markets. To any who would suggest the restricting of markets I would say that the very life blood of the economy of our country is derived from the land, forests, mines and the sea.
The Address-Mr. Bater That is the very life blood of our economy, and the arteries that carry that life blood are our markets. I am pleased to see that something is to be done about freight rates. A committee is being set up. We all hope that something will come out of that committee's work.
I am concerned about our young men and our returned soldiers who might desire to go back on the land. Out in Saskatchewan we are suffering from a diminishing population. I think I have an idea whereby that might be checked, and perhaps put intc reverse. To our federal and to all governments across the country I say this: If they own or control any improved lands of any kind, be they fruit farms, grain farms or any other kinds of farms, give our young boys and our returned men an opportunity to purchase these farms. Do not rent them or lease them, but let them purchase them. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that with ownership goes greater responsibility, greater interest and greater stability.
I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) when he was speaking about the lands in the far north and also the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray). They both spoke a great deal about the lands that are left in our last great northwest. In connection with those lands I would like to turn back the pages of our history a few years and suggest that we go back to the old homestead days, Mr. Speaker. By that I do not mean that we should go back to the oxen and to the walking plow with which many started their homesteads. I would suggest that the lands that are still left in the northern areas owned by any government be thrown open to our young men and our returned soldiers for homesteading. I would suggest that a little larger fee be charged today. It used to be $10 and we got 160 acres. Perhaps today the fee might be increased to $25. I suggest that they be given a section of this land. Under the old rules and regulations they were given three years to comply with certain residence qualifications and so forth. In that time they had the privilege of proving up and getting title to their land. I contend that something of that kind should be done with the lands that are still left in the northwest about which we have heard so much from the hon. members that I have mentioned.
I should like to concur in what the hon. member for Mackenzie had to say about the evergreen highway from Winnipeg to Edmonton. I have spoken on this before, and I just wish to reiterate what I have said previously. I would urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Resources
920	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bater and Development (Mr. Winters) to get together and consider assisting the governments in western Canada to build this highway from Winnipeg to Edmonton along what is termed No. 5 highway. Make this highway into a real defence highway, and also a real link between the southeast and the great northwest. Highway No. 5 follows from the city of Saskatoon right through Battleford and North Battleford, then through the oil fields at Lloydminster and on to the great city of Edmonton, where there is also considerable oil. If you were to lay down a rule on the map of Canada from Edmonton to Winnipeg you would find that your straight line would pass through Battleford and North Battleford. Right at that point highway No. 4 crosses, coming up from Malta, Montana, through Swift Current, Biggar, Battleford and North Battleford, the gateway to the north, and on to Meadow Lake. This highway link is needed, not only for defence purposes but because of the great oil developments in this area.
I mentioned that something was being done about freight rates. Some of the opposition members from Saskatchewan have asked on different occasions what the Liberal members from that province have been doing in connection with this matter. I would remind them that the Liberal members from Saskatchewan have not been asleep. We have been quite active in connection with matters pertaining not only to western Canada but to all Canada, and we were active long before we ever came to Ottawa.
Since coming to Ottawa we have been very vocal about these things. Speaking of freight rates in particular, I remember that not long after the election of 1949 when we came to Ottawa, the first time for many of us, we got together about freight rates. The result was that a petition was forwarded to the board of transport commissioners asking them not to accept any recommendation that a change be made in the Crowsnest pass rates. That was the first thing we did on coming here to Ottawa for the fall session of 1949. That petition was sponsored and headed by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir).
Before concluding I should like to say that I was advised yesterday by letter that one right hon. minister who is in the chamber at the present time has just completed thirty-seven years of continuous public service, not only for Saskatchewan but for Canada as a whole. I refer to the Right Hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I sincerely hope that he will continue to serve us for many more years.

While our ship of state no doubt will encounter many storms on the national and international seas in the days that lie ahead.
I have every confidence in our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as its commander, for I know he will chart a course through the storms which will bring her safely into port.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in agreement with the wording of the Social Credit amendment concerning veterans affairs. I believe our veterans ought to be receiving a better deal than most of them are receiving at the present time. Sometime later I hope to go into more detail in respect of this matter, but today I trust that I shall be pardoned if I refrain from speaking on veterans affairs, in order to talk about another matter which I consider to be of urgent public importance to the people of Canada.
In my judgment the recent announcements concerning Britain's economic position justify considerable alarm on the part of all Canadians. That situation sets for Canada a challenge of the first magnitude. Canada's security is gravely threatened. Her future, her well-being is in serious danger, economically and in a military sense. Britain is in peril both economically and in a military sense. Peril to Britain is peril to North America, particularly to Canada-imminent peril. Britain is the keystone of the arch of security which Canada seeks to build up to shelter her; to shield her markets and to safeguard her shores.
Britain is the advance base of America's front line of defence. Upon Britain we must anchor our armies to the left and to the right, all across the world. Whatever threatens our advance base threatens our whole defence position. We must therefore attend to this matter with all our might-without hesitation or delay.
To those familiar with the facts this impending economic break-down of Britain has not been unexpected or unpredictable. It has been the inevitable result of several factors at work systematically, and I fear in large measure designedly, since as far back as 1890. I say designedly because I believe, as I said the other night, that there is a group of evil men exercising influence throughout the world who have for over sixty years been aiming at the destruction of the British commonwealth.
The rapidly growing industrialization in many parts of the world, in Germany and the United States particularly, the hot commercial rivalry and conflict emanating relentlessly from those two great nations, brought on disastrous world war I, with all its effects upon Britain, direct and indirect. Not the
TMr. Bater.]

least of those indirect effects was the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause which was forced upon Britain by the United States in 1922. That was one of the most mischievous measures ever advocated by a people in the history of the world. Its effect upon Britain and other nations of the world has been incalculable in dire results.
The continued improvement in the use of machines, solar energy and technological skills ushered the western world from an age of scarcity into an age of abundance about 1928. By an age of abundance I mean an age in which people were able to produce more goods than they were able to sell under the financial system under which they operated. This fact, resulting in failure to distribute the world's abundance, precipitated the great depression of 1930, again emanating from the United States. The effects of this upon Britain were catastrophic.
World war II then broke upon Britain, with results, direct and indirect, disastrous beyond description. From the date of the onset of that unprecedented misfortune, Britain has been victimized by all her foes and most of her, on the face of it, friends. The treacherous devices of these false friends have been well-nigh unbelievable, not only by reason of their diabolically mischievous effect upon Britain, but also by reason of their abject stupidity when judged by considerations of enlightened self-interest of even the perpetrators themselves. Surely the nations that had to do with causing these difficulties, that today are almost screaming about the inability of Britain to discharge responsibilities which she would have discharged had those nations given Britain a chance-


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


John Horne Blackmore: I will name them some time; I do not feel disposed to do so now. I could give them easily. Thanks for asking the question. I will give the hon. member the answer off the record any time he cares to come around to my room. I will enlighten him in a way that will startle him. For the present benefit of the hon. member, one example is Bretton Woods. If he can find out who initiated Bretton Woods and who jammed it down Britain's throat, he will be able to get the clue to the whole situation. Finally we come to the so-called post-war period. Throughout the feverish years since 1946, Britain has heroically striven to carry her full share of the load. Statistics establish that, in the absolute, she has borne far more of the burden than even her population could warrant. Considering Britain's wounds during the war, inflicted by her foes, and those during the war's aftermath, inflicted by her
The Address-Mr. Blackmore false friends,-or should I say foolishly selfish friends?-Britain has carried, and has been expected to carry, a weight of effort utterly beyond her capacity to endure, for long.
Something must be done to reinforce Canada's advance base, Britain. It must be done soon. What shall it be? What part shall Canada play in the matter? This is a question which I submit is of the most vital interest to every Canadian breathing today.
Britain has men, well trained, brave, unbeatable. But Britain needs materials desperately, goods for human needs, goods for military needs. Canada has the goods. Canada has extensive resources to produce more goods. Hardly a Canadian commodity could be named as to which Canada probably could not double her production in a few years if she deliberately set herself to do so.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) estimated our 1951 production at $20 billion worth of goods. Unquestionably we can produce much more goods in 1952 if our normal rate of increase of productive capacity continues and we are afflicted with no major calamity such as befell the prairie provinces this fall. Why not advance Britain enough credit to enable her to buy, and Canadians to sell, all the goods that Canadians can produce in 1952 over and above those goods required to supply our people's needs and enough goods to fill our present commitments to other nations? It will be impossible at the present time to tell just how much that will be, but, whatever the amount may be, why not, almost in a blank cheque sort of way, undertake to advance to Britain enough credit to buy such of those surplus goods as Britain needs? Why not promise to Britain a corresponding amount of credit in each of the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956?
If a thing like that were done, immediately you would strengthen the confidence of all producers across Canada. With normal intelligence in the government in the way of guaranteeing prices and other necessities, you would greatly increase production and the productive capacity of Canada. Take hogs as an example. Think of the number of hogs we were producing in 1944. We could produce that number again, and more, and so on through practically the whole list of our agricultural products.
Why not let Britain have these goods on a thirty-year credit basis without interest and with no strings attached, except that there be yearly token payments, until the United Kingdom economy justifies larger continuous payments? It would be understood of course that Britain would use the credit advanced

The Address-Mr. Blackmore to buy surplus Canadian goods both for human consumption and for military needs.
To give an idea how desperate is the plight of Britain today I should like to read into Hansard a statement which appears in the United States News and World Report of November 9, 1951. It is on page 31. It reads as follows:
Why England Needs More Dollars
What Britain Owes Outside of Britain
Due other countries in pounds	$13,258,000,000
Due other countries in dollars and other non-sterling currencies	 6,143,200,000

What Britain Holds to Meet These Debts
Gold and dollars	 3,269,000,000
Other currencies	 400,400,000
Overseas investments	 5,703,600,000


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to put these details on Hansard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: From where does the information come?


John Horne Blackmore: It comes from the Economic Record issued by the United Kingdom Information Office, 10 Albert street, Ottawa.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The details are as follows:
Canada, Britain and Marshall Aid
Figures published by the Reports and Analysis Branch of the Economic Co-operation Administration show that, during the period April 3, 1948 to March 31,	1950, paid shipments totalling
$(U.S. 16,786,047,000 were made to receiving countries, Of these, Canada shipped $(U.S.) 955,860,000, the remainder being from the U.S.A., Latin America, and participating countries.
Canada's shipments were made under the "offshore purchase" arrangements approved for E.C.A. "Off-shore purchases" are not authorised for any commodity declared by the U.S. government to be "in surplus". So far as Canada was concerned, by far the biggest of these off-shore purchases were for bread-grain shipments.
Of Canada's total paid shipments of $(U.S. 1955,860,000 no less than $ (U.S.) 829,100,000 went to the United Kingdom. Food and agricultural commodities totalled $496,208,000 and industrial commodities $332,892,000. The following is a breakdown by commodity:
Paid Shipments from Canada to United Kingdom
under E.C.A.
April 3, 1948-March 31, 1950 (in round figures)



$(U.S.)

[Stage Direction]
Food, feed and fertilizer	 496,208,000
Bread grains	 413,162,000
Wheat	 344,747,000
Wheat flour	 68,410,000
Rye	 5,000
Beef, veal, pork, lamb and mutton ...	66,305,000
Cheese	 9,996,000
Fish and fish products, ex. fish oil and
meal	 6,637,000
Miscellaneous agricultural products ..	109,000
Raw materials and semi-finished products	 327,674,000
Nonferrous metals and products	 204,887,000
Aluminum	 82,523,000
Copper	 64,786,000
Zinc	 28,393,000
Lead	 28,651,000
Precious and other metals	 535,000
Pulp and paper	 59,860,000
Lumber and lumber manufactures___________	36,534,000
Metallic ores and concentrates	 4,539,000
Iron and steel mill materials and
products, including ferro-alloys		11,906,000
Non-metallic minerals	 6,805,000
Chemicals and related products	 2,678,000
Hides, skins and leather	 466,000
Machinery and vehicles	 4,489,000
Machinery and equipment	 4,033,000
Electrical appar. excluding generators and motors	 99,000
Industrial machinery, N.E.C	 626,000
Agricultural machinery, ex. tractors ..	3,308,000
Motor vehicles, engines and parts		455,000
Miscellaneous industrial and unclassified commodities	 730,000
Total	 829,100,000
"Everything else" ( foreign and commonwealth
relations, colonies, broadcasting, research, etc.)	(£559 million)-2s.lld.-(15 cents)
Surplus ("Helps towards financing house building.
school building, war damage claims, etc.")	(£443 million)-2s. 3d.-(ll cents)
Total	(£3,898 million)-£1.0.0.-(	$L00)
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Trends in Britain's Overseas Trade
A survey of Britain's overseas trade*, just published by the United Kingdom Board of Trade shows that while the volume of both imports and exports are increasing, the greater rate of expansion is recorded by exports.
Raw materials have shown the biggest proportional increase for any group in both exports and imports, although on the export side manufactured goods still account for by far the largest share in the increase in values.
Changes in Exports
During the period covered by the survey-the first four months of 1950-exports showed a general rise of 12 per cent in value compared with 1949. Manufactured goods exported increased by 11 per cent, raw materials by 35 per cent and the exports of food, drink and tobacco by 23 per cent.
The largest percentage increase in manufactured goods exported was shown by jewellery, with an 82 per cent rise on 1949. Private cars rose by 58 per cent, plastic materials by 45 per cent, refined petroleum products by 41 per cent and leather goods by 40 per cent.
Among the main groups of manufactured goods exported only three had declined on 1949. They are: cotton goods-down 8 per cent, non-ferrous metals-5 per cent down, and electrical goods-1 per cent down.
Changes in Imports
Imports in the first four months of 1950 showed an average proportional rise of 7 per cent compared with 1949, with manufactured goods up by 4 per cent, raw materials by 15 per cent, and food, drink and tobacco by 3 per cent. The effects of devaluation and of the 25 per cent cut in Britain's purchases from North America were reflected in changes in imports of raw materials. Wood and timber imports declined by 42 per cent, papermaking materials by 19 per cent, and non-ferrous ores by 5 per cent.
The biggest increase in the food import group was 50 per cent for meat, but tobacco imports fell by 35 per cent from £52.5 million in 1949 to an annual rate of £34-2 million this year. On the other hand, tobacco imports from Canada rose sharply from £2 million in 1949 to an annual rate of £6 million this year.
Balance of Trade
Britain's trade with the world during the first quarter of this year has shown a further trend towards balancing. Out of 68 territories listed in the survey, only 9 show an excess of trade with the U.K. greater than £3 million (monthly rate), while 44 show an unbalance of less than £1 million.
Total trade showed an excess of imports over exports equivalent to an annual rate of £280 million. This compares with £429.5 million in 1949, so that the decline of excess of imports on last year is so far approximately 35 per cent.
Trade with Canada
Comparative figures of U.K. exports to Canada, and of overseas trade with Canada, are provided in tables 13, 17, and 19. They show that U.K. exports of vehicles and woollen goods continue to preponderate in trade figures, though Canada's purchases of U.K. machinery show encouraging rises.
Available from H. M. Stationery Office, London. Price Is. Od.
The great Creator has put into the hands of the British commonwealth all the cards with which to win the stupendous game now in progress among men. It is for us, right here in

this parliament, under divine guidance, to play our cards with wisdom-and likewise to play to win!
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: On
October 16 last, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) made a statement concerning Canadian housing. I desire to say a few words about his statement, and housing in general. In his report to parliament the minister more or less summed up the activities of his department in this way, as found in Hansard at page 79:
. . . during this very difficult period, the government, by adjusting its policies to meet conditions, has lived up to its obligations, . . .
Further along in his speech the minister said: "... a great effort is being made." Certainly, Mr. Speaker, those are the words of a man who is highly contented with the achievements and well satisfied with his departmental accomplishments. But is his satisfaction warranted? Is his contentment justified? I suggest today that it is timely for this parliament to look at the hard facts.
About two years ago Mr. D. B. Mansur, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, told us that Canada was short 425,000 houses. I think it is generally admitted by members of all parties that today there are more than 600,000 Canadians who lack adequate housing accommodation. By the end of this year we are going to have a population of 14,500,000; that is, roughly, 400,000 more than we had on January 1. I think that every hon. member realizes quite well that heavier immigration, natural population increase and defence industries have all contributed to creating in Canada a housing problem which ha9 long since reached fairly desperate proportions.
Today we have literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens jammed together in dismal quarters with little or no privacy. Overcrowding, dirt, poor ventilation and bad lighting are breeding disease, mental strain, frayed nerves and broken families. Many young couples in Canada today are unable to have children simply because they dare not under existing housing conditions. Mr. Speaker, I say that the unworthy conditions in which many of our citizens are living should appal every member of this house. I regret to say that the housing situation in Canada has become worse with every successive week that the present minister has headed the department. Yet on October 16 he came to parliament and told us that a great job is being done. Every month thousands of immigrants are being brought to Canada, and I support that policy. But I should like to know this. Where are they going to live?

Where are they to get homes? The demand for housing has never been greater in our history. What about the supply of new houses? Even the minister, in his remarks on October 16, was forced to admit that the supply of new homes was disappointing. Referring to section 35 of the National Housing Act, as reported at page 79 of Hansard, he said:
. . . the results . . . have, in the over-all, not been as great as might have been hoped.
What an understatement, Mr. Speaker! According to the dominion bureau of statistics, in the face of the greatest demand we have ever had for new houses, starts are falling off sharply and drastically. I refer hon. members to the latest report of the dominion bureau of statistics on new residential construction. In May of this year, according to page 9, 11,699 houses were started as against 13,647 for a year ago. In June there were 9,514 starts as compared with 12,065 a year ago. In July the figure was 6,123 as compared with 10,245 a year ago-a 40 per cent drop. In August there were 7,461 as against 9,306 a year ago; and in September, the last month for which figures are available, there were 5,538 as against 10,245 in 1950-a drop of 46 per cent. Yet the minister tells us that a great effort is being made!
I wish today categorically to deny his assertion. I do not see how any government supporter, even a real friend of the minister, can defend the inertia, the indifference and the complete ineptitude which his department has shown in getting houses started in Canada. In view of the staggering need for houses, what did the minister offer us earlier this session? I think that once again even his colleagues would admit that about all he offered Canadians were platitudes and generalities. I quote from page 79 of Hansard:
"The government is well aware of the continuing need . . ."
"Flexibility has been the keynote to the government s approach to this important problem . . ." the problem is being kept under continuous review . . ."
I respectfully suggest that there is not much boldness, much imagination, or much pioneering spirit in those statements.
I know that the minister is a kindly and well-meaning gentleman, but I think it is my duty to say that his inaction should stir up the wrath of every hon. member of this house, regardless of his politics. The taxpayers of Canada this year are paying the minister $22,000. His chief and allimportant job, as I understand it, is to try to provide decent houses for Canadians. I say that he is falling down on that job. Why are so few houses being built in Canada? Last spring the minister told us that it was
The Address-Mr. Thatcher because of a shortage of materials. That may be partly true, but I cannot accept it as the main factor. Certainly I can tell the house that, in the hardware line, there are not many housing materials in short supply. There are plenty of nails, lock sets and building paper. As a matter of fact, during this past year most merchants have been plagued by inventories which have been too heavy. I have talked to many lumber dealers, who also denied that there were shortages in lumber. As far as material shortages are concerned, I think the fact of the matter is that the minister and his department once again erred in appraising the situation last spring. The minister admitted as much a few weeks ago, as reported at page 78 of Hansard:
. . . and the defence construction program was not absorbing all the materials anticipated . . .
But even if there have been shortages, Mr. Speaker, then I say it is the full and complete responsibility of the Minister of Resources and Development; because last spring he told this house that housing would receive a priority for essential materials second only to defence industries themselves. In fact, as every hon. member knows, housing has received almost no priority for materials within the past six months. The minister admitted that fact in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) a few weeks ago. As reported at page 80 of Hansard, he said:
At the present time, no system of allocations or priorities has been planned for other than defence workers' houses.
No priorities for houses! Can we wonder if the program is lagging? We are all conscious of how necessary it is to get the defence effort well under way. But surely, in times of peace, even defence industries should share materials with housing. During these past months I have seen bank buildings going up, office buildings and buildings for commercial enterprises of various' kinds. Where did they get materials? Here in Ottawa I have seen the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation build a spacious and costly building out on the Montreal road. I suppose enough material to build one hundred houses went into that building. What kind of priority did that building have?
Many Canadians today are beginning to wonder if the minister is deliberately taking steps to impede and discourage housing in Canada. Certainly every time he takes a step, it seems to have such a result. Hon. members will recall that last February the minister announced that the down payment on houses, under the National Housing Act, would be increased from 10 to 20 per cent; and that

The Address-Mr. Thatcher the loan balance would be based on January 1950 costs, rather than on current costs. At today's prices, almost $3,000 is required for a man to make a down payment on a small house. Such an amount would have bought a whole house a few years ago. The net result of the action of the department last February has been that only people in the higher wage income brackets can buy a house in Canada today. Surely a common-sense approach for parliament to take at this session is to restore the 10 per cent down payment.
I should like to tell hon. members what happened in the province of Saskatchewan this past year as far as houses are concerned, not because it is different from what happened in other provinces, but rather because it typifies the inaction of the Department of Resources and Development as far as new housing is concerned.
Last June the minister of social welfare, Mr. Sturdy, who has charge of Saskatchewan housing, came to Ottawa to negotiate for houses with the Minister of Resources and Development, under section 35 of the National Housing Act. He asked for 2,000 homes, which was only a drop in the bucket, I may say. The minister immediately cut the figure of 2,000 to 500. After agreeing in principle to this number he deliberately and specifically left the allocation of those houses to the provincial government. When the 500 houses were decided upon, the provincial authorities decided to divide them among all of the larger centres of the province. Houses were allocated to Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and such smaller centres as Weyburn, Swift Current, Indian Head, Estevan and so forth. But when the time came to settle details, the Minister of Resources and Development refused to agree to houses being built in points such as Estevan, Indian Head, Weyburn and others. I might say that he refused to allow houses to go up in those areas despite the plea of hon. members on his own side of the house, such as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). What are we to assume from that ruling? Are we to assume that here in Canada only the larger points are to be given housing? I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) came from a small centre. What does he think about such a ruling?
However, negotiations continued between Central Mortgage on the one hand, and the provincial government and the city councils of Regina and Moose Jaw on the other. These two cities along with Saskatoon held a plebiscite to see whether their taxpayers wished to finance the necessary 12\ per cent
to enter the project. Regina and Moose Jaw voted overwhelmingly to go into the scheme. That was almost three months ago. Following the plebiscite the city council of Moose Jaw got in touch with Central Mortgage which thereupon cut the allocated figure of 125 to 75. For almost three months the city council has been trying incessantly to get Central Mortgage to get construction started.
In the west snow has come; winter is upon us. Five hundred houses were approved for Saskatchewan five months ago, and not a single house has yet been started under section 35. Seven other provinces in this dominion have had precisely the same experience. I say that such inaction can only be described as bungling in a national emergency.
On October 9, when the house met, the Minister of Resources and Development did announce a few minor changes in his housing legislation. I ask hon. members to note the timing. Snow had come to many sections. Winter had pretty well arrived, and it was impossible to start construction in most parts of Canada. What were the modifications he offered parliament? Were they bold changes? Were they changes that would have any material effect? They were a step in the right direction, but they will have about as much success in solving the housing problem as a man would have in trying to level mount Eisenhower with a pick and shovel. What were those modifications? The minister eased the down payment required, for defence workers. How will that help the other 95 per cent of Canadians who want to build houses? They still have to raise the 20 per cent down payment.
The minister also belatedly decided to take a more sensible approach to the loan balance on the new houses. He decided to base the loan on current values instead of January, 1950, values. These were minor advances in housing legislation. But the Department of Resources and Development, with its usual ineffectiveness, managed even to neutralize these changes. I do not ask hon. members to take my word for it. I quote the Financial Post of November 10 at page 1. Talking about these modifications the Post says this:
Defence area house policy bogging down in red tape.
Hopes that restoration of the 10 per cent N.H.A. down payment on new housing in defence areas, announced by the government a month ago, would bring a speed-up in housing programs for defence workers are fading fast.
Stalling the program, according to builders, are "unrealistic" sales prices set by Central Mortgage and Housing and serious delays and uncertainties in the designation of defence areas.
[Mr. Thatcher.1

Canada needs houses, but the department seems to be giving us only timidity, a cautious approach, and a lack of action.
It is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that recently many insurance companies have refused to lend money in some sections of Canada for housing. The department for some time now has had the privilege of lending the money directly where it was desirable. In this house opposition members have repeatedly urged the department to adopt such a course. According to a Canadian Press dispatch of last Friday the minister finally got around to dealing with the problem. I quote the Canadian Press:
Resources Minister Robert Winters in a telegram to the National Builders' Association said yesterday that the federal government and the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Corporation had ironed out difficulties which held up building programs in the past.
Mr. Winters said loans will be available to would-be home owners by next Monday or Tuesday.
I say to this house, if they can be available next Monday or Tuesday, why on earth could they not have been available all during the building season? The patience of Canadians on this difficult subject is being sorely tried. By its lack of leadership, by its handling of material priorities and by its procrastination on financial assistance, the Department of Resources and Development has actually done much to discourage the building of houses in Canada. By curtailing new construction it has pushed up the prices of older houses higher and higher. The policy of the department today means that people in the lower income brackets simply cannot buy houses. I think that this inertia in the department is going to continue just as long as hon. members are willing to permit it to continue. I realize that there is no easy solution to this problem, but I think the first step should be for the Prime Minister to call in his young colleague, and tell him the facts of life. Tell him that we must have some action on this problem. If I may be colloquial, tell him to get the lead out.
We in the C.C.F. group believe today, as we always believed in the past, that a subsidized low-rental program is the only real solution to our housing problem. Only thus are dwellings going to be made available to those in the lower wage categories. We call upon the government to tighten up sharply on non-essential building and give housing whatever priorities are necessary. As I said a moment ago, we also urge the government to reduce the down payment to all Canadians to 10 per cent; or lower if the minister can find the money. In localities where the insurance companies will not go in to lend money under N.H.A. we urge the
The Address-Mr. Drew department itself to finance the balance. If labour is short in some areas I think it would be reasonable for the department to approach the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and say: "We cannot build enough houses for Canadians on a forty-hour week. In this emergency will you agree temporarily to work longer hours?" I think if congress members in most centres knew that houses were being built for some of their fellow workers they would temporarily agree to suspend the forty-hour week. Mr. Speaker, something has to be done about housing. Parliament cannot countenance further delays or excuses.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am availing myself of the opportunity to speak again in this debate because the very nature of this session and the absence of a budget which makes it impossible to introduce subjects in the usual way. There are one or two subjects that I wish to discuss this afternoon simply because no other procedure is available to me. Before I take up the subjects that have led me to enter this debate again I should like to discuss something which has been very much in the mind of every one of us for some weeks past.
The royal visit of 1951 is now history. We can only hope that the Princess Elizabeth and her husband carry with them across the Atlantic the same happy recollections of their visit which Canadians will always carry with them in the years ahead in their hearts and minds. From the time of their arrival five weeks ago until the moment of their departure today there has been warmth and friendship in all the gatherings that have met them during this most crowded trip. They have felt the unity of Canada. They have seen also the vast diversity of the nation which has the third largest land area in the world but a population which is still very small in relation to that immense area.
In each province they have received evidence of the affection of the people of that province for its history and traditions. The last song they heard this morning before their departure was "Ode to Newfoundland" when the children gathered in old St. John's expressed their love of that rugged sea-girt island in the lovely words of that song which has for so long been associated with the empire's oldest colony which is now Canada's youngest province. It was fitting that from the warm-hearted people of Newfoundland they should receive such a truly royal send-off as they did today.
There can be no better proof of the loyalty of all Canadians to the crown and all that it represents than the genuine enthusiasm

930	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew with which our future queen has been welcomed in every part of Canada. These were not merely formal parades and celebrations. This was a welcome from the hearts of a people who were expressing their love as well as their respect for the human beings who symbolize the continuity of this great tradition.
At a time of so much uncertainty throughout the world, of so much despair and unhappiness, this royal visit has had a profound significance, not only for Canadians but for all the peoples of the world. To those who share with us the privilege of democracy it has offered encouraging proof of the strength of democracy itself. To those nations which are deprived of democracy it will offer very convincing evidence of the fact that far greater than the strength of any regimented dictatorship is the strong love and affection that the people of our nation and other democracies have for the traditions of democracy and the form and symbol of that democracy.
I hope that many hon. members heard the broadcast this morning from St. John's of that eventful departure which followed so closely the farewell message of the Princess Elizabeth last night when the last words of her message to the people of Canada were "not good-bye but simply au revoir." I .think that in those words she was expressing her own hope and her own conviction that she will be with us on other occasions. I am sure that we all share that hope.
I take this occasion to raise a point which I think it is fitting to raise at this time. I noticed a few days ago, as I am sure other hon. members of the house also did, editorial comment about the fact that technically neither the Princess Elizabeth nor other member of the royal family are citizens of Canada. When they are so much a part of Canada in the affection and thoughts of our people this may not seem of practical importance in itself, but nevertheless it does raise a question which I think should be raised at this time.
A few years ago there could be no question about the king, the queen or any other member of the royal family being a citizen of Canada or of any other nation within the commonwealth because there was a common citizenship within the commonwealth. Since January 1947 when the Canadian Citizenship Act came into force there has been a real question as to the status of the king, the queen or any other member of the royal family in so far as technical citizenship is concerned. I do not raise this for the purpose of causing any contention whatever.
I have before me an editorial from the Ottawa Journal which raised this point in


most moderate and careful words, and it has been raised elsewhere. It does seem to me that this is something which might be given consideration at this time when the princess, her husband and other members of the royal family are so much in our thoughts. It would appear that with the passing of the citizenship act in January, 1947, apart from that special relationship which is created through our expression of loyalty to the crown, there is in fact no status of citizenship so far as the king, the queen or any other member of the royal family is concerned. I noticed that, while the Princess and Duke of Edinburgh were visiting Washington and were in fact being received in the Canadian embassy, Ambassador Hume Wrong had this to say:
In response to the President's friendly invitation, Princess Elizabeth has come to Washington. She has come from Canada and she is returning to Canada, and I think it is not arrogant for me to claim that she is here primarily as a Canadian Princess.
I think that all Canadians would be quite happy to join in approval of those words. However, if she is a Canadian princess I think that not only in her position as a member of the royal family but also from the technical point of view she should be a citizen of this country. I would submit to the government for its earnest consideration at this time the desirability of introducing at this session of parliament amendments to the citizenship act which introduce a declaration at the very outset of the act that the king, the queen and the other members of the royal family are all citizens of Canada. I believe it would be a happy gesture, and I also believe it would have another significance.
I like to think that Canada has a great role to play not only as a friendly neighbour of the United States but also as an interpreter between the United States and the other nations of the commonwealth. Living side by side with the people of the United States, using the same colloquial expressions, pronouncing the English words we use more as they do than as many people living in other parts of the commonwealth, we are very fortunately placed to convey to them something of what the crown means to us and something of this wider unity within the commonwealth which has immense importance for them as well as for us. I think that it would not only be a gracious and popular gesture to make them citizens of Canada but that it would also be a rather impressive thing for the people of the United States to know that Princess Elizabeth is not only princess of Canada in name but princess of Canada as a citizen of Canada under the laws of this country.

I propose to speak now of something else which relates more particularly to our own daily affairs. As I indicated before, I shall deal with three different subjects because of the fact that this debate provides the only opportunity of which I am aware to introduce these subjects at this time. On different occasions in this house an effort has been made, by means of questions and other devices under our rules, to bring before parliament the very real urgency of the situation in western Canada. I claim no special knowledge of the situation there beyond that which can be obtained by anyone who visits western Canada at this time. Like some other members now in the house, within comparatively recent days I have had the opportunity of seeing something of what the conditions are in western Canada. This is not a subject for indefinite and uncertain debate. This is now a subject calling for immediate and vigorous action. I am certain that members of this house from every part of Canada will commend the government for vigorous and positive action if it will take proper steps to give assistance to the farmers of western Canada at this most critical time.
The point has been raised about the difficulty of moving the crop because of the shortage of box cars. Assurances have been given that what can be done is being done to move the grain as quickly as possible. Nevertheless movement is not taking place on the scale that it should. On top of that problem is the very grave problem raised by the weather. In recent weeks a very real disaster has occurred in western Canada. After the promise of one of the finest crops in our history, snow has made it impossible to harvest a considerable part of that crop, and at this very time as much as $200 million worth of this year's grain is lying under snow. Much of what has not been cut and harvested will be reclaimed in some way next spring but it will undoubtedly be of low grade, and much of what has already been harvested has been greatly reduced in grade because of the weather conditions.
Just at a time in the middle of October when it seemed that the weather was once again turning for the better, and that there was a real hope of harvesting the crops after all, snow came again. Sub-zero weather hit the whole of the three prairie provinces, and the result is that in many parts of those provinces practically none of the grain has been harvested. This applies equally to wheat, oats and barley in proportion to the crops of these different grains. Because of very rainy and continued wet weather a considerable part of the hay crop was also
The Address-Mr. Drew spoiled. This brings to the attention of all of us the problem that the farmers now face in connection with their livestock. Most cattle are in the hands of small or comparatively small operators. Ranchers are dependent on their herds for a considerable part of their revenue. If they are forced to dispose of their livestock they are not only going to reduce their herds greatly but they are going to reduce substantially the possibility of production for at least another two years, and this coming at a time when we are all warned that production of livestock and other agricultural products is one of the really important parts of Canada's activities in the maintenance of our free system throughout the world.
It is not merely a problem of lost crops and the necessity of disposing of cattle and other livestock because of the shortage of feed. There is the problem of what is going to happen next year because the farmers have not been able to realize on their grain owing to the difficult times. Because of the very great expense of harvesting and producing what has been harvested and produced this year, the credit position of many farmers in the three prairie provinces is not good at the present time. The banks and the other creditors of the farmers are seeking payment, and the farmers therefore are in a position where many of them will have great difficulty in financing their requirements for the next year.
This is a situation which affects every one of the three prairie provinces. It has attracted attention particularly in the case of Saskatchewan, but it also affects Manitoba and Alberta as well. However, because Alberta has so many other resources, there may be some tendency to ignore the fact that the condition of crops there is quite as bad as, if not worse than, in other parts of western Canada. While oil, coal and other products may give Alberta a widely diversified economy, the fact remains that agriculture is still the basic and most important activity in that province.
Therefore I am raising this point today for the purpose of urging upon the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that they and he act without further delay to meet this emergency, with the knowledge that members in all parts of the house will support them in any effective steps which can be taken to keep the three prairie provinces on a sound basis in connection with the production of those agricultural products that Canada and the rest of the world need at this time. I urge the Minister of Agriculture without delay to call a conference in western Canada to be
932	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew attended by himself, and the ministers of agriculture of each of the prairie provinces, to see what can be done to meet this situation.
This subject should be discussed from the point of view of dealing with the transportation of grain as an emergency, an emergency just as important to the people in the three western provinces as though this were a situation which might have arisen in a time of war.
Also I think the credit position of the farmers in the three prairie provinces should be examined, and that very quickly arrangements should be made so that those farmers who have been seriously affected this year, and whose credit position is difficult through no fault of their own but because of unusual weather conditions, combined with difficulty in moving the crop, can get credit so that they may make their plans for the next year, and so that their production will be fully maintained.
Furthermore I say that such a conference, frankly and without reserve, should discuss the type of production next year, which is indicated through the known demands throughout the world, and also having regard to any changes of which the government may be aware concerning the consumption of our products in any of our larger markets. In making that statement I have no desire to be an alarmist, but I do not think that any of us should disregard the possibility that the British market may be affected by some of the austerity measures indicated within the past few days. If those measures are going to have an effect upon our markets, then let us know, and let the farmers in western Canada know. That would help them to plan their production on a basis and in a manner that would give them the most effective production next year from the point of view of financial return and certainly of markets.
I recognize there is no procedure by which I can place a motion before the house that will indicate to the minister that members of the House of Commons do want action- and action right away-to deal with this emergency. I would hope however that he has received sufficient indication from members on both sides of the house that they would support immediate and positive action. He may take their expressions as reflecting the views of the people, that this calls for drastic measures, in keeping with the nature of the emergency with which the three prairie provinces are confronted.
I wish now to speak about another subject which, while not directly related to what I have been saying, on the other hand is not entirely unrelated. On different occasions in the house there has been discussion of the


South Saskatchewan river project. I raise the subject again because, once more, I have had the opportunity to discuss that project in Saskatchewan. I do wish to raise once again the need for an early decision to proceed with this great venture. On different occasions during the present session, as well as on earlier occasions and in earlier sessions, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Die-fenbaker) has emphasized the fact that this is no longer a speculative project, but that the evidence is available upon which to base a decision to proceed with something which should be open no longer to any doubt.
I raise the matter, not only because I have had further opportunity for discussion of this subject while in Saskatchewan, but also because it is referred to in the speech from the throne-and in a way that I think raises a very real question as to what the intention of the government is in this matter. I think many hon. members must have been struck by the fact that two projects which have some similarity are mentioned in the speech from the throne. There is reference in it to the St. Lawrence power and waterway development as well as to the South Saskatchewan power and irrigation project.
It must have been noticeable to hon. members that the St. Lawrence power and waterways project is to be pressed forward -alone, if necessary, but preferably in cooperation with the United States-without the government waiting for the advice of any committee or commission. The government has been able to make up its mind on this matter by examining the evidence of its engineers in the usual way. To me it seems very strange that, while the government is prepared to act in regard to a project very much larger in scope, it appears to be unwilling to act on the advice of the same engineers when they advise that the South Saskatchewan project should be proceeded with. When I say "the same engineers" I am not saying that the individuals are the same. I am speaking of the engineers available to the government, through its engineering service.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: And also P.F.R.A.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and also P.F.R.A., as well as the excellent and comprehensive reports which have been prepared by that organization.
I wish every member of the house could see the site of that project. It is a very large development. Nevertheless it is one of the simplest engineering developments awaiting the vigour and initiative of the people of Canada. It is a project that is of importance not only to the people in that

immediate area but to every Canadian. It should not be necessary to repeat that the economic improvement of any part of Canada is of benefit to every other part of Canada. We are one family in this country. Long ago we asserted the proposition that we shared the responsibility for the maintenance of the people of every part of Canada, and we certainly must recognize that the improvement of production, the improvement of communications or the improvement of the general economy of any part of this country benefits the people of every part of Canada.
In that great area in central Saskatchewan there have been crop failures for many years. Churches have been closed; schools have been closed; families have moved away. At a time when there is a housing shortage, there are empty homes. It is something to challenge the vision, the spirit and initiative of a young and vigorous people. Yet we all know, from the representations which have been presented year after year, and anyone who has had an opportunity of examining similar developments elsewhere can quickly see, that it only needs a positive decision to bring a great area of six hundred thousand or seven hundred thousand acres of prairie farm land into profitable production. This is no longer open to doubt, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows so well, because he has spoken on this subject often and has visited the site. The minister knows also the experiments which have been carried out which have proven beyond any uncertainty that profitable crops can be produced in that area if it is properly irrigated.
On the South Saskatchewan river there are great walls sloping upward at an angle which makes filling, at the point which has been chosen, a comparatively simple engineering operation, huge though the undertaking is. I mention these things because I would hope that in this house the government would find there is a sufficiently strong sentiment in support of immediate action to warrant not waiting until next year to come to a decision. If the government waits until it gets some report next year, then there will be no beginning of this venture until the spring of 1953. This work should be started in the spring of 1952. It should be started, not only for the advantage of the people living in that area and not only so that this large area would be irrigated, but also so that the surrounding area would be improved from an economic point of view. That area could then welcome large numbers of people from outside of Canada and from other parts of Canada as well. It could become a prosperous.
The Address-Mr. Drew populous and extremely sound area economically which would take its place in the forward march of Canada in these stirring times.
There was no committee needed for the St. Lawrence development involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet we are told that we need a committee now to advise the government on the recommendations of past committees concerning a large but simple engineering project which awaits decision by the Canadian government. I am raising this, Mr. Speaker, because I would hope that the members of this house on both sides would indicate to the government that they believe the people of Saskatchewan, who have suffered so greatly from the weather this year, need the encouragement which something of this kind would give; that they may have a decision now so there will be that measure of confidence that would come from the announcement that as soon as the weather makes it possible in the spring of 1952, a real beginning will be made on that great undertaking which I have heard discussed ever since I first visited Saskatchewan as a youngster.
This is a good time to undertake it for several reasons. First, the fact that it would improve a great area of Saskatchewan; second, the fact that it would bring into production a great area of land that could be put to profitable use; third, the fact that it would give heart and spirit to brave people, who have fought on under difficult conditions; fourth, the fact that this is a good time to undertake it when the very difficulties to which I have been referring this year may make people available for work next spring who might otherwise not be available for that type of work which is undertaken in the first year of an undertaking of that kind; fifth, there is the fact that this would be another step in the development of those resources of power across Canada which would take its place in the increasing productive capacity of a country which is now engaged in the common cause of freedom.
I have mentioned irrigation, but over and above the power that would be required for irrigation there would be a large amount of power available for industry, for rural electrification and for the general improvement of conditions throughout a wide area of Saskatchewan. Actually, the amount of power that would be produced by that development would be close to the amount now being used in the whole of Saskatchewan at this time. It would be the core of a great power development which would incorporate all the smaller opportunities for power development in a grid which would embrace a large part

The Address-Mr. Drew of that province. With the new units for steam production which can be tied into that grid to maintain power in the off-peak periods when the reduction in the flow of water -made that necessary, I am sure that Saskatchewan could become electrified in a way that would make the situation there comparable to that of any province in Canada.


Mr. Coldwell:: You -could utilize the oil, too, for these steam plants.


George Alexander Drew: It has been suggested to me that the use of oil makes this a desirable feature, and I am happy to have that suggestion. Actually, with the development of oil in western Canada, the conversion of that oil to electric power through steam plants has now become an economic possibility at a relatively low cost. Tied in with a basic source of electric power, as is now being done in Ontario in certain portions of their electric grid, this power grid in the province of Saskatchewan would change the whole home life of the people of many parts of that great province. I can only hope that the members of this house, in every way they can, will indicate to the government that they would support any action that would mean there would be a decision to proceed with this great project as soon as that is possible next spring.
In the few minutes that remain, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the subamendment. The subamendment raises the question of war veterans allowances. I believe that there is -a reason why it is a good thing this point has been raised at this time. Earlier in the session, we might have hoped to have been able to deal with this in some other way. As soon as this session started, hon. members of this house raised the point that veterans were placed in an adverse position because they were being dealt with on a different basis from that adopted in connection with others whose wages were being adjusted in some way because of the greatly increased cost of living. It has been said over and over again that if there is one part of the Canadian community that deserves justice and the real consideration of every member of this house, it is those Canadians who, through their service to Canada, have been deprived of their physical capacity and who, because of that fact, are in a position of need and are dependent upon pension.
The veterans of this country receive a pension not as a matter of right, on an equal basis to every veteran. That pension is adjusted in relation to the impairment of the physical condition of the veteran because of some disability. Therefore the pension does not go to anybody who has not had his physical capacity limited in some way as a

result of his war service. The veteran who has not been injured or who has not had his physical capacity lessened -does not get a pension. The veteran who has had his physical capacity limited gets a pension which is intended in some ways to be related to the measure of that disability. For that very reason we cannot regard any pension as being more than the basic amount required by the veterans. The basic amount that is being paid now is a basic amount that was settled sometime ago. There has been no over-all proportionate change which has attempted to take care of the increased cost of living, although the government has taken such action in many other cases. I am not raising any question as to what was done in other cases; it has not been done in the case of those who most deserve it. That is therefore a reason why it is a good -thing that this subamendment has been introduced at this time. It was on October 19 that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) said belatedly that in spite of the absence of any reference to this subject in the speech from the throne the government intended to deal with this subject. These were his words, as reported at page 197 of Hansard:
The government has come to the conclusion that it is advisable to have this legislation studied by a special committee on veterans affairs before submitting it to the house. Accordingly it is intended that such a committee will be set up as early as possible after the regular 1952 session opens in order to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Mr. Speaker, that does not meet the situation in any way. The government, however, indicated that it was intended to introduce some legislation during the present session. From the very fact that the minister has stated that there will be a committee of this kind next session, and that legislation will be introduced following the discussions in that committee, I think that indicates that we may not expect the kind of over-all legislation we would wish now. He said, however:
I now wish to inform the house that it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation dealing with this matter.
That was on October 19 and this is November 12. This is the day after Remembrance day, and it is -an -appropriate time for us once again to remind the government that these are the people who most deserve the consideration of every hon. member of this house. I think it is a shameful thing that we have had to wait this long for any indication from the government as to what it intends to do. It is now a matter of weeks only before it seems likely that this session may come to an end. The veterans all across this country are in a desperate position. They

are waiting for some word that will give them some measure of confidence and hope throughout the winter. I propose to support this subamendment for the purpose of calling to the attention of the government, by this means, the fact that we must wait no longer not only to deal with this matter but to give to the veterans evidence of the fact that we remember those who have done most for the freedom of all the people of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Major James William Coldwell: Before the house rises for the dinner recess, may I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) if it is possible for members of the house to get a copy of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936. I have been trying to get the bill. I understand that it is printed and in circulation. I understand that people outside of this house have copies of this bill, but we members of the house are told that it is not available to us.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I will ask my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) about the matter, and I will do my best to have the copies distributed as soon as possible.
At 6.15 o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) before the dinner hour, I could scarcely do otherwise than rise at this time to make some comments upon the suggestions which he made. At the beginning I wish to say that I have no criticism to offer on his having made the suggestions which he did; and to state that they were made in a spirit which seemed to indicate a desire to co-operate in having a number of matters settled in a reasonable way. I hope I shall be able to deal with the questions raised, which, as he said, were three in number, in the same spirit.
The debate which has now been going on since the beginning of the session has been commented on by all those who preceded me. I am sorry that I was not able to be here on the day on which the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) spoke, but I did have the privilege of reading the speeches in Hansard. I want to join with all those who have congratulated the two
The Address-Mr. Gardiner speakers upon the very able manner in which they presented the question to the house. Then, I want to join with all those who have been congratulating those who have been associated with the debate from the beginning. I am sorry that my time does not permit of my going into detail with regard to the different matters that have been touched upon.
I will come at once to the three questions which were raised by the leader of the opposition before the dinner hour. He asked a question with regard to the South Saskatchewan project: Why was it so easy to decide upon the St. Lawrence project as a result of reports which had been made by engineers, and so difficult to decide with regard to the South Saskatchewan? I would recall to the minds of hon. members that the discussions with regard to the St. Lawrence have been continuing over a very long period of time. I suppose in my lifetime and in the lifetime of most hon. members at least a score of reports have been made on the possibility of constructing the St. Lawrence seaway. It is one of the first major developments that I can recall having heard of in the Dominion of Canada, and only at this time are we undertaking to proceed with it. Therefore I would suggest that there is very little reason for saying that the decision was reached with much greater ease than any decision has been reached with regard to the South Saskatchewan.
On the other hand the South Saskatchewan project is one which I think was mentioned almost as long ago as the St. Lawrence. In the first instance, I think the records indicate that something in the nature of a South Saskatchewan development was mentioned as long ago as 1854 or 1856. But one can scarcely say that there was any practical decision as to the possibilities of constructing a dam on the South Saskatchewan-a dam of the nature that we are now discussing-until a very much later period, as a matter of fact a period that is well within the memory of all hon. members who are sitting in this house now.
The old original project that was spoken of in relation to the development of the area that we are speaking of was one which eventually resulted in what was known as the Pearce report. The Pearce report suggested bringing water down from the northern branch of the Saskatchewan river and the Red Deer river, over the open country from Hanna to the South Saskatchewan river, and then siphoning the water under the South Saskatchewan river and irrigating some land on the south side of the Saskatchewan. That was the project which

The Address-Mr. Gardiner was in the minds of a great many people when I came to Ottawa sixteen years ago, and it was the question that I first discussed when I went to Alberta in the first year that I was here as minister to discuss the question at Hanna with the people who were concerned with the project. We then spoke of irrigating a million acres of land as a result of a development that was going to take place first on the Red Deer river, and then on the North Saskatchewan and so on, a part >f which was to fill the Tramping lake, with he storage of water to be utilized in that irea. At that meeting-it was the first meeting that I attended in relation to these developments-it was suggested by someone -without looking at the records I am not in a position to say who, and I have not had time to look up the records since before lunch-that such a development was almost impossible, and that we should be considering in that area a much smaller development, the possibilities of which could not be questioned. And so a little later we took on discussing what is known as the Red Deer project, and that project has not been proceeded with up until now although practically all of the engineering necessary to proceeding with it has been done, and it would be possible, with a very little more work, to undertake construction work on that project.
Out of that decision there grew the possibilities of the development of the South Saskatchewan. Therefore beginning back about 1938 or 1939 we began to investigate the possibilities of building a dam on the South Saskatchewan river. The nature of the possible dam and the location have changed from time to time in accordance with the reports that have been made by engineers. The first suggestion of a rather conclusive kind that was made was that we ought to build the dam not very far east of a point directly north of Swift Current, and that by building a dam there we could raise the water up to a level where it would run by gravity out on the north side of the Saskatchewan and make possible considerable irrigation there. Well, we investigated all the possibilities of that and found out finally that it would be impossible to build a dam at that point. I am not going into the details as to why the engineers reported that the construction of a dam there-a dam that could be kept there-was an impossibility; and therefore that project was dropped.
Then we moved down the river from that point and investigated all of the possible sites for a dam until we finally got to what is known as the Coteau creek site. To make a long story short, the engineers eventually

reported about 1946 that there was a possibility of building a dam at that point. We provided them with funds to go on with their investigations and make absolutely certain of that fact.
I do not think anyone questions the possibility of building a dam near Coteau creek on the Saskatchewan river. As the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, a site has been chosen there which could be utilized if it is thought wise to spend the amount of money required in order to develop a project for that purpose. I am speaking from memory now but I do not think I am far out when I say that the dam would be about 210 feet high and would provide for the storage of water to a depth of about 190 feet. It would create a lake 145 miles long extending some miles west of the bridge which was built last summer by the Saskatchewan government across the Saskatchewan river north of Swift Current. If created, that lake would be the largest body of water in the settled portion of the prairie provinces and as such would be no mean lake as compared with many lakes in the Dominion of Canada. In other words, in the very centre of the area known as the drought area there would be created a large lake in the valley of the South Saskatchewan river.
I recall we were discussing the possibility of building a weir only twelve feet high at Saskatoon. The matter was discussed in this house for some days and then we finally determined that it would be all right to build the weir. The suggestion was sent over to the Senate where it was discussed and it came back that the suggestion was not receiving the required support. I recall an old friend of mine with whom I served many years ago in the legislature of Saskatchewan, on the Liberal side, and who later became a Conservative. He was then in the Senate as a Conservative, and as assistant leader-I refer to Senator Calder- got up on the floor of the chamber and said something which is very true with regard to western Canada. He said that he had driven all over western Canada in the early days as a school inspector and that he knew the country from one end to the other. He said that any project which would retain water or delay the flow of water out of that area was a worth-while project and should be considered by any government. Those may not be his exact words, but that is their effect. So from'that time on the matter went through without any further objection.
I say now that the placing of a lake in the centre of Saskatchewan could have nothing but good results no matter what else might be considered in relation to it. That is the position taken by the P.F.R.A.;

that is the position taken by myself as minister; that is the position taken by a great many others in western Canada; that is the position taken by a great many others in eastern Canada, those who are supporters of this government and those who are not. If the project is carried out it will be the largest project of its kind north of the United States boundary. This is different from the St. Lawrence river project and never can have the same kind of earning power. There will be a few projects south of the United States border larger than this, but not very many.
That was the position down to not very long ago. About two years ago there was some discussion as to whether or not the federal government would assume the whole cost of the project. I do not think there was ever any misunderstanding, from the time the project became a possibility, between the premier of Saskatchewan and any member of the government at Ottawa. It was always anticipated that probably some part of the cost would be paid at Ottawa and some part would be paid by the provincial government and the farmers. The provincial government did not proceed without getting a report. I have in my hand the Cass-Beggs report which was completed in March of 1950, from which I should like to read one or two paragraphs. This contains the evidence placed before the government of Saskatchewan and before this government through that government.


Major James William Coldwell: That was not the irrigation report?	,


James Garfield Gardiner: This was the general power report made by Mr. Cass-Beggs. The paragraph I should like to read appears on the second page of the report. This is a letter from David Cass-Beggs, the engineer, to Mr. J. W. Tomlinson, general manager of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation at Regina, presenting the report. He said:
I am not able to recommend that the Saskatchewan Power Corporation make any contribution in respect of hydro-electric sites below Coteau creek, which might be economically developed as a result of the regulated flow from the main dam. The criterion that must be applied if development were considered at an early date is the same as that now used to estimate the investment justified at Coteau creek, namely they must compete with cheap fuel stations on fuel and operating costs alone. None of the sites, requiring as they would, the construction of a dam as well as the power plant could be built for the figure assumed for the plant at Coteau creek.
I read only that one paragraph but there are other paragraphs bearing upon the same matter. I shall not take the time to read them all, but they could be read. I read that paragraph in order to suggest that the results from the building of the dam were questioned.
The Address

Mr. Gardiner The suggestion was made that there was a possibility of developing power from coal at a cost which might be less, but I understand that that question is now entirely removed. After examining into all the facts in relation to it Mr. Tomlinson of the power board in Saskatchewan and the government of Saskatchewan are satisfied that that would probably not be the result, that the cost would not be higher. But I do suggest that there is some reason given in that for the suggestion being in the minds of some people that probably we ought to have further information on the whole matter and at least a further examination made into the reports made by eminent engineers, both those experienced in irrigation and those experienced in the development of power, before proceeding to spend over $68 million to put in a dam and then depend upon the province and the farmers spending another $33 million in order to carry out the power and irrigation developments.


Major James William Coldwell: The province has agreed to that, has it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: If the dam is put in and paid for by the dominion government, the province has indicated that they will be prepared to proceed with the development of the power and irrigation projects, whatever the cost may be, and the estimated cost is $33 million.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister quoted from a report. I have not seen that report. I wonder if he would table it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been tabled as a part of the commission's report. I think it has been on the table for about a year or more, but I can make the full report available. That is the history of the early stages of the project. The government stated last session that they would appoint a committee, and as I stated to the house at the time I immediately agreed. The reason that I immediately agreed is because I have been the promoter, so to speak, of this project. Everyone admits that, both east and west. As a matter of fact I listened to the premier of Saskatchewan, standing on the floor of this house just about in front of where I am standing now, make that suggestion a year ago and say that he did not care whether the dam was called the Gardiner dam or the dam Gardiner, but in any case he thought it should be recognized that I had had something to do with the promotion of it.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: The dam is damned.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right as far as it goes, but I want to repeat that I was the promoter of the project from the time I came to Ottawa, and I will have something to say a little later, in dealing with one of the other
938

The Address-Mr. Gardiner questions, as to why I became the promoter of it at that early date. Being the promoter of it, I would not care to stand up in the house and say that, because I am absolutely convinced the project is a good one, it ought to be proceeded with. I was convinced before we started that we ought to find something that would be absolutely satisfactory. I have been trying to find it for the past sixteen years, and personally I am satisfied it has been found. But I am quite sure that every member of this house would agree that when it comes to proposing to spend $68 million out of the treasury of Canada we should at least ask three men who are experts to examine the records upon which I have based my opinion, and upon which others have based theirs, and to say whether or not they agree with it.
I have the feeling in the bottom of my heart that after they have made their examination they will agree, but nevertheless that again is the opinion of one who is promoting the scheme and not one who might be critical of it.


Major James William Coldwell: When may we expect the report of the commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are three practical men, as everyone will agree. Dr. Hogg is the chairman; Mr. Gaherty has been very prominent in power matters throughout Canada for a number of years; and Dr. Widtsoe is well known in the United States as an outstanding irrigation engineer. These three men have been reading the reports. In a clipping from the press that was handed to me tonight I see that they have already arranged to be in Regina on the 22nd of November to discuss the question with the government of Saskatchewan, P.F.R.A. officials and others. I am unable to say when they will be ready to make their report, nor would I care to say that they ought to make it at an earlier date than they themselves determine will be possible in order to obtain whatever information they need to make a finding. But I am as hopeful and desirous as anyone in this house that the date be a very early one.
I am sure that the members of the government agree with me in that view, and there will be nothing done to delay the report so far as the government is concerned. I hope as a result of their investigation we will get a report which is satisfactory, and that we will be able to proceed; but at the moment I cannot say anything more than that. I hope that the leader of the opposition will accept my statement when I say that the government is just as anxious as he and others in the west that it will be possible to construct a project


in the central part of the province of Saskatchewan, which will bear comparison with the irrigation project that has been developed in the southern part of Alberta. Whether or not the South Saskatchewan project is found to be feasible, whatever the decision of the commission is with regard to it, we will still have proposals to make in connection with the Red Deer project in the province of Alberta, but we think this project should be cleared off the records before we start considering a third large project.
The other question raised with which I wish to deal is the crop condition in the west. I am quite prepared to accept the proposition which was made before dinner by the leader of the opposition to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture should take some interest in this matter. I do not think that he was suggesting that I had not been doing so, but I am quite sure that he was suggesting that if I had been doing so the house ought to know something about it. Therefore I decided that immediately he sat down I should say something to the house with regard to this matter. The leader of the opposition referred to the fact that we have been experiencing crop difficulties in western Canada over a long period of time. May I suggest that in that long period of time we have spent at least fifty years trying to produce a wheat which would ripen in ten days less time than the old red fife with which we started. We finally succeeded in producing the Marquis variety. I say "we" but the experimental farms under the Department of Agriculture had more to do with the experimental work than perhaps any others. They were associated with our university staffs and others.
Eventually we developed Marquis wheat. We had the assistance of individual farmers here and there who were carrying on cross breedings of wheat with other plants in some cases in order to get a wheat which would ripen at an earlier date. I am going to suggest at the beginning of what I have to say tonight that, while we accomplished the task which was given to us as a department of agriculture, I am glad that the practices we are following with respect to the seeding of crops and harvesting have done away with much of the time saved by the experiments carried on with regard to wheat varieties. In other words, I am afraid that the late seed-ings of the last two years have not been altogether due to the weather. They have been partly due to the kind of equipment that we are using now.
It is true that when you get a large tractor and equipment out on the field and get them moving you can do a lot more in twenty-four hours by that means than you could in any

other way, but it is also true that under certain weather conditions some of that equipment will not function properly. Therefore you many not get any more done in the first ten days when seeding is possible with the kind of equipment we are utilizing now than we got before with much smaller horse-drawn equipment. Those who are producing this equipment are already experimenting with changes in it in order to make it possible to operate to greater advantage and to get the crop in at an earlier date. But I did want to say that much, not as a suggestion that the farmer should or that he is going to change back from the system he follows to the system that was followed before. Someone mentioned that this afternoon. They are not likely to do that.
But it does devolve upon all of us, both those of us conducting experimental farms and those of us who are producing equipment that is going to be utilized on the farms, to try to give back the whole of that time to the farmer, so that he can get his crop in at the earliest possible date. That is the first thing that has to be done.
Then, after that has been accomplished, we come to the harvest time. And I must say that during the last two seasons we have had experiences which have come to us, first by the fact that we seeded late, and secondly by the fact that our harvest started late. Last year our crop was frozen. This year our crop, or a very large part of it, is still out under the snow. I am not going to contend that had we been still cutting it with a binder and stooking it, that much of it would not still be out under the snow. I recall that in 1919 winter came on the tenth of October, and it came to stay on the tenth of October. Some of my crop was out under the snow that winter, and much of the crop of other farmers was out under the snow, too, during that winter. So we cannot say that if we had had some other system this would not have happened.
But still I think we should do everything possible including improvements in equipment to see to it that it does not happen any more often than we can help. But over the period that I have known something about farming in western Canada I can say that we had our crop frozen in the same way in 1907, when we did have red fife wheat-and frozen much worse than it was last year.
Then in 1914 we had a drought very similar to the drought which we have had recently. Governments had to go and help the farmers out in 1914. Then hon. members will all recall that from 1930 to 1938 we had the longest drought, the longest dried out period in the west, that we have ever experienced.
94699-60J
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Now, all I wish to say with regard to that is that in all those cases, on every one of those occasions, the problem was handled by provincial governments. The handling of it was carried out by provincial governments. Now, it is true that at certain stages the federal government was called upon to assist. In the case of homesteaders who were still under lease and had not claimed their titles the federal government took care of the assistance that was necessary in relation to lands that were still held under homesteading regulations, and the provincial government took care of those who owned their land.
It is true that in 1908 and again in 1914 some adjustment was made as between the two, to make it easier. Nevertheless the principle was that the federal government took care of those who were still on government land and the provincial governments took care of those on the land for which they held title.
This brings us down to the big occasion upon which a very considerable amount of assistance was required, namely, in the thirties. We had seven years without crops, in many areas. And on that occasion all I can say is that the federal government did come in with money and help. This government paid out $186 million in that period in order to assist with distribution of, first, the seed, then distribution of feed and then distribution of food. In other words, in order to make it possible for the farmers to stay there, that was done.
Now we are face to face with a problem which confronts us as a result of a frozen crop last year, and a crop which we are having difficulty with, not because of drought but because of too much moisture. That has carried our crop into the winter season, and it is now lying under the snow.
Well, I suppose if we follow the practice that we always have followed, the proper thing to do at this time would be for the provincial governments to work out some plan and present it, and if they are not able to take care of the financing of it themselves, they might present some method of taking care of it through the federal government. They might consider that they have done that, in the light of the changes which have taken place since we last dealt with this problem.
Wheat now must be delivered to the wheat board. During the thirties that was not so. No one had to deliver wheat to the wheat board in the thirties. But now all wheat is delivered to the wheat board. And so it is suggested that probably some plan should be worked out by the wheat board, which

The Address-Mr. Gardiner naturally would be done through the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that plan should be presented as soon as possible.
Prior to the dinner hour the leader of the opposition suggested that I should call together all the ministers of agriculture in the western provinces, along with all others concerned, and have this question, along with another one he mentioned, discussed at the earliest possible date. Well, before he had made that speech I had already arranged to be in Regina next Friday to meet with the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The wheat pools handle about half the grain marketed in western Canada. I am going there because every year since I have been in Ottawa it has been my custom to go there to their annual meeting of delegates. When this year I suggested it might be difficult for me to go I received a message from them to the effect that they thought it was important that I should go. Therefore I expect to be there on Friday.
At that time naturally we will discuss this problem which is confronting members of the house; and when it has been discussed with them I am sure that anything I do not know now with regard to the situation existing there, I will know after I have attended the meeting. The government has been giving consideration to the whole question, as to how the problem should be dealt with. I know that they are in a position to discuss it finally with the governments in the west, and those who handle wheat, and I know that that is being done. Beyond that I am not in a position to go tonight, other than to assure the house that everything which can be done under the circumstances -in view of the fact that one does not know from week to week just what conditions are going to be-everything that can be done under the circumstances is being done. And I am quite satisfied that when the method of dealing with it is finally worked out, the house will be fairly well satisfied with what is done and with what is suggested.
The leader of the opposition dealt with one other matter. I know my time is almost expired, but if I could have only five minutes more I could deal with it.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The other matter was the fact that we are not producing quite as much food of some kinds as we were producing during the war. That in itself proves the fact that we can produce more, and I on many occasions have made the statement that we could produce more bacon than we are producing, if it were essential that it be


done. We can produce more dairy products than we are producing, if it were necessary to do so-and so on.
The point raised by the leader of the opposition confronts us with this question: If we did raise any more, what are we going to do with it? Now, I realize this, that there are a great many people in the world who could make use of it.


An hon. Member:: India.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not enough just to say that we are not producing it. Farmers are not certain that they should produce it, in the circumstances. We must find out all the facts in relation to that question. I had no intention whatever of taking a trip out of Canada within the next two or three weeks, until recent events brought persons onto the scene that we have not been meeting for some time. It is my intention to go to Rome to attend the FAO meeting. I shall be leaving a week from today for that purpose, and will be discussing matters about which the leader of the opposition and others are concerned with the persons who are there from the different countries in order to satisfy my own mind as to the situation. I hope to be better able to satisfy the government and others as to the position when I come back.
In relation to the suggestion that we should call the provincial ministers together to determine what we should produce next year, as well as what ought to be done generally in connection with the difficulties of harvesting the crop this year, I would only remind the house that ever since 1939 we have been holding at least annually, and in some years two or three times, meetings of the very type suggested by the leader of the opposition. The meeting for this year was called about a month ago, and is to be held on December 3, 4 and 5. I expect to be back from the conference which I am attending on November 29 or 30 in time to attend that meeting. At that meeting we have not only the provincial ministers of agriculture from the three prairie provinces, but we invite the ministers from all the provinces. Most of the provinces have appointed their deputies as advisers to that conference. Then, they bring along with them a sufficient number of their officials to be able to give us all the information concerning conditions in the different provinces. When we are discussing markets for feed wheat, for example, we are concerned as to what the ministers of agriculture and officials of the different provinces think, whether east or west. When we are discussing the question of whether or not we are going to continue paying freight on feed grain coming from the western provinces to

the east, and going into British Columbia, we desire to have all the ministers of agriculture present. The meeting is all arranged and information is being gathered, not only by federal officials but by the provincial officials right across the country. The federation of agriculture and the pools will be represented. They will all be here during the first week of December, and there will be a complete discussion of the requirements.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I agree with the leader of the opposition that the time is going to return-I am not a prophet and I am not in a position to say when, but I am just as sure as he is that it is going to return-when we are going to need markets other than the Canadian markets, and the market that we will be able to retain in the United States for our farm products. I agree with him, too, that when the time comes we shall again find that the best market available is the British market. The main reason we are not in the British market to the extent we might be at present is that everybody thinks it is the best market in the world. When everybody thinks that, they are right because after all there are fifty million people living in the British isles, and they are only able to produce a little more than 50 per cent of the food they require. There is one of the finest markets in the world for food products. Our advantage is that we are one of the nearest countries to Britain producing the kind of food they require, and we can produce it in very much greater quantities than we are producing it now.
Just as soon as we can be assured that over a period of one, two or three years we are going to be able to market products, I agree with those who say that we both provincially and federally ought to be out encouraging the farmers to produce much more than they are producing. I am sure when we are in a position to do that we can get better results than we are getting now. I hope it will be agreed that we have been giving some thought to the matter, and we have been making some arrangements to deal with it. We have changed our arrangements to meet changed conditions in different places, and I hope that before the end of this session we shall have a full report of what took place at the meeting in the first week of December.


Joseph Henry Harris: In the meantime, they are all hungry.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some people have been hungry much longer than that. The difficulty is, of course, that even after you have produced the products in surplus, you have
The Address-Mr. Green trouble getting them distributed in the manner in which they ought to be distributed. In the meantime, everyone is doing the best job of that they can.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the minister a question arising out of what he said? Is it his intention, when he is on his visit to Rome, to discuss with the United Kingdom government in London the matters to which he referred in the latter part of his speech?


James Garfield Gardiner: From communications I have had, I understand that the minister of food and the minister of agriculture will be at Rome, and that is one of the reasons I shall be there. They are both new men. I hope to stop off in London on the way back to discuss the matter with others.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. members of the house have had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of hearing two excellent and interesting addresses today dealing primarily with agricultural problems, and with our great province of Saskatchewan. This evening I am not in a position to follow up on those subjects, so I intend to speak on the subamendment which, as members know, deals with war veterans allowances. I should like, however, to add a word in support of the South Saskatchewan river project. During the present parliament my seatmate the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been a strong and consistent advocate of that measure. In the last parliament my seatmate the late John R. MacNicol, who represented Toronto Davenport, was also an advocate of this plan. I am sure that if he had been here today he would have been greatly heartened by the speeches made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
In the last few years British Columbia has been blessed with an influx of many thousands of people from the province of Saskatchewan. The main reason for the increase in our population figures in the recent census is that every city, town and village in British Columbia has received people from that great province of Saskatchewan. They have made and are making a fine contribution in all fields of endeavour in our province. They of course know of this South Saskatchewan project. It is therefore not entirely new to those of us who represent British Columbia in this house. With the leader of the opposition I hope it will be possible, during the year 1952, to have a start made with this project.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) adds to the

The Address-Mr. Green
amendment which was moved some weeks ago by the leader of the opposition, the following words:
Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
That subamendment is timely, and I hope that it will receive the earnest consideration of every member of the house. It is timely not only because of the great need of these men but also because today is the day after Remembrance day; we have a somewhat clearer vision today than we shall have in a few weeks' time, or than we had a few weeks ago, of the merit of the men who are eligible for this war veterans allowance.
These men are in a restricted category, for several reasons. In the first place they must have served in a theatre of war, unless they happen to be small pensioners. There are a few who were injured in England or even in Canada and who, as a result of injuries or of an illness, are in receipt of a pension. Those men also are eligible for the war veterans allowance but the main group of veterans who can qualify for the war veterans allowance are those who have served in a theatre of war; and that applies both to the first world war and the second. We are dealing with front-line troops. This question raises the needs of front-line troops, men who have had battle experience. There is also provision for the widows both of the front-line men and the pensioners who did not serve in a theatre of war.
The veteran must be of the age of sixty years or he must establish that he is incapable of self-maintenance. The widow of a veteran need be only fifty-five years of age. The greater number of these men are sixty years of age or over. That age was set because it was considered that front-line experience had pre-aged them to the extent of ten years. That is why the war veterans allowance is commonly known as the "burnt-out" pension. It is in effect an old age pension paid to the front-line veteran ten years in advance of the age at which payment is made to the civilian. But even when he becomes seventy years of age, and in some provinces can get larger payments under the Old Age Pensions Act, the veteran prefers to take the war veterans allowance. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who was for some years minister of veterans affairs, will agree with that statement. These older veterans have always considered that they received the war veterans allowance as a matter of right, that it was something that they had earned.
They have a pride which arises from their front-line service. I was impressed

yesterday, as I am sure the other hon. members of the house must have been, by the bearing of the older veterans-and by that of the younger veterans as well, of course- in the parade which took place out here in front of the parliament buildings. There was something in the way they carried themselves that showed clearly their attitude; showed their pride in what they have done for their country.
They are a responsibility of the dominion government. The provincial governments and the municipalities have never accepted responsibility for the veteran. They have always taken the position that he is the charge of the dominion government. I think that stand is perfectly proper. The dominion government must at all times recognize the fact that these men who served in the forces of the nation are the responsibility of the dominion government.
The war veterans allowance is based on a means test, as the old age pension was and will be until January 1, 1952. The allowance was supposed to be high enough to enable the veteran to live. It was never meant to be just a handout to help him along. It was supposed to be high enough to enable him to carry on. The figures at the present time are $40.41 per month for a single veteran, which amounts to $485 a year. Over and above that figure he is allowed to earn an additional $125 without forfeiting any of his allowance. If he earns more than the additional $125, then his war veterans allowance is cut accordingly. Hence at the present time the ceiling of the income of a single veteran receiving the war veterans allowance is $610 per year. I am going to ask hon. members to keep that figure in their minds, because I intend to deal with it again later in my remarks.
For the married veteran the monthly allowance is $70.83 which makes a yearly payment of $850. In addition to that he can earn, or receive, for example, by way of a small disability pension, an additional $250, making the total income he can get, and still receive the full allowance, the sum of $1,100.
Those are the figures as of today: $485 a year allowance for the single man, with total income of $610; the sum of $850 for the married veteran, with total income of $1,100. They were set in the year 1948, a little over three years ago. As the cost of living has gone up there has been great suffering among these veterans and the widows of the veterans. It was not long after 1948 that many of us found it necessary to plead in this house for an increase in the amount of the allowance. Finally the government made an investigation, and discovered that we had been telling the truth about the position of the

recipients of war veterans allowance. In 1949 provision was made for an assistance fund, which has been called the war veterans allowance assistance fund, under which the recipient of a full war veterans allowance can get additional help up to a total of $10 a month for a single man and $15 a month for a married man.
That was not an automatic additional payment. The help was given in the shape of perhaps money to buy a suit or money to buy blankets. It was in effect a handout, not a direct increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance. There still is a fund of that type. It carries with it the humiliation of a second means test, because each time a veteran applies for this help he must prove that he is in need, and he must apply year after year. There is no such thing as applying one year and getting the payment for two or three of the following years. The money itself, from which these payments are made, is contained in an annual vote in the estimates. There is no statutory foundation; it is simply contained in an annual vote. But the fund has had one very good effect. It has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that an increase is needed in the amount of the war veterans allowance. The very fact that there has to be this assistance fund clearly proves that there should be an increase in the allowance itself. Mind you, only a small percentage of the recipients of war veterans allowance are able to qualify for this extra assistance.
Now here we are in November, 1951, the day after Remembrance day. The cosit of living has gone up to 190-4, as compared with the years from 1935 to 1939. The cost of food and the cost of clothing have gone a great deal higher than that figure. I think the situation was very neatly put in an editorial in The Legionary, which is the magazine of the Canadian Legion, in the edition of May, 1951. There we find these words:
To all the burnt-out men on war veterans allowance the "cost of living" actually means the cost of keeping alive.
How true those words are. Then the editorial goes on:
Whereas rising living costs to the majority of Canadians have meant skimping a bit and doing without certain luxuries, to many disability pensioners and all-
And I mark that word "all". I continue: -and all war veterans allowance recipients the result has been a deplorable lowering in their already low living standards.
The men and women in these two categories are not concerned with the jump in automobile prices, or the higher cost of electric washing machines. They were already leading a marginal existence before the price increases and were never able to
The Address-Mr. Green afford such luxuries. What they are vitally and desperately concerned about now is the price of bread and butter and milk and wheat, of everyday clothes and other essentials that are needed to exist. To them, the cost of living increase does not mean the official, over-all 79.7 per cent,-
And incidentally, since that editorial was written it has gone up from 179-7 to 190-4. The editorial continues:
-but the considerably more than 100 per cent rise in basic food and commodity prices.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members that for a very existence these men need at least $50 a month. For the veteran and his wife the amount should be at least $100 a month, $50 per person. Let us not try to hedge on that question. I do not believe there is an hon. member who dare deny the statement that that amount is needed. It is recognized in some of the provinces. For example, it has been recognized for some years now in British Columbia and in Alberta, because an additional sum of $10 has been paid to the old age pensioners in order that they may get $50 a month, rather than $40 which was the official figure, the payment of which was shared by the dominion and the provinces. Even with the new old age pension, which is to commence at the first of next year the province of British Columbia is adding $10 to the amount received by the senior citizens who are in need, and is doing the same thing for those men and women from 65 to 69. Those who need that help will get an additional $10 from British Columbia.
Certainly, the war veterans allowance should be as high as the old age pension. I pointed out a few minutes ago that it is in effect an old age pension for veterans, payable ten years earlier because of their front-line service. I hold in my hand a letter from a veteran which I think sums up the picture very neatly. You know, usually we get the real facts in letters from men and women out in the ridings, the men and women who are doing the suffering. They have a way of painting the picture so that there can be no difficulty seeing what it is. Here is what this veteran says who wrote to me on the 2nd of this month:
As you know the old age pension is down to 65 with a means test and a possibility of $50 a month.
Of course that has since been made so by the British Columbia legislature. I continue:
Many of us veterans here are not getting that much and some of us are at the 65 mark and are thinking of making application for old age pension but the medical attention and hospital are good here.
944	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green
He means the Shaughnessy military hospital, which can treat the recipients of the war veterans allowance. The letter continues:
And I do not see why we have got to get the old age pension in order to get the $50 per month. Why cannot they give us veterans $50 a month too? We have got the right to eat as well as anyone else.
The Legion in their brief to the cabinet last year, and again to the special committee on veterans affairs which sat in the spring session, recommended that the war veterans allowance be made $50 to the single veteran and $100 to the married veteran. They were supported by the National Council of Veterans. There has been unanimity in the request for an increase in the allowance to those figures, and I believe that the time has come to bring about that increase. It can only be done by the government. The government must make a decision. With all the earnestness of which I am capable I urge that attention be given to this matter now; that the war veterans allowance be increased to $50 for a single veteran and $100 for a married veteran, with a similar increase for the widows.
In addition to increasing the pension a further step should be taken without any more delay. The ceiling on permissible income must be raised. Earlier in my remarks I pointed out that the single veteran on war veterans allowance had the ceiling set at $610. He can only earn or get by way of disability pension an additional $125. For the married veteran the ceiling is $1,100, as I said, and in that case the small pension or earning can be only $250 a year.
But we find that in the case of the Old Age Assistance Act passed by this parliament in June and applying to senior civilian Canadians between the ages of 65 and 69 years a ceiling of $720 is provided for single persons and $1,200 for married persons. In other words, the ceiling for the single civilian is $110 higher than that for the single veteran under the War Veterans Allowance Act. For the married civilian it is $100 a year higher than for the married veteran. I do not understand how any government can allow that condition to exist. I do not see any justification for the difference in the figures.
The raising of the ceiling would mean a good deal to the veterans of 70 years of age and over. The other day they were advised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to apply for the new old age pension. He said that the single veteran would get $40 per month under the new old age pension and his war veterans allowance would be cut down to $10.83, which would bring his total income up to $610 per year. If the


ceiling were raised to $720 a year, which is the figure for the civilian of 65 years, the veteran would benefit by that additional $110. His war veterans allowance would be cut by that much less if he received the new old age pension.
Then there is the small pensioner. Many recipients of war veterans allowance receive also a small pension but they cannot get more than $610 with the pension and war veterans allowance combined. The two must not go over that figure. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has announced that there is to be an increase in the basic pension. That means to the recipient of the war veterans allowance who is also a small pensioner that there will be no change because his war veterans allowance will go down as the pension goes up. He will not be one cent better off than he is at the present time. There is a crying need for the raising of this ceiling.
In addition, these veterans should be given the chance to earn more money. One of the recommendations of the house committee on old age security was that the ceiling for civilians from 65 to 69 should be raised so that there would be more incentive to earn, and the ceiling was placed at $720. The same thing applies to the veteran. This is a third reason why the ceiling for the war veterans allowance should be raised.
I come now to the attitude of the government toward this question of war veterans allowances, and I do not intend to go farther back than 1951. At the spring session a resolution was brought into the house to set up a special committee on veterans affairs but the terms of reference were so restricted that the committee could not deal with the war veterans allowance. My colleague and friend, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), moved to have the terms of reference widened so that the committee could deal with it, but he was ruled out of order. The government refused to accept that suggestion. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) led in backing up the ruling of the Speaker that the terms of reference could not be so amended and the amendment was ruled out of order.
When we went into committee we were urged by the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans to recommend to the house a widening of the terms of reference so that the committee could consider war veterans allowances. That motion was made again by the hon. member for Royal, but it was voted down by all the Liberal members on the committee with the exception of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who voted with the opposition members in support of the

motion to widen the terms of reference so that we could deal with war veterans allowances. In effect there was a curtain drawn in front of the war veterans allowance at the spring session and we had no chance whatever to deal effectively with it.
At this fall session there was no word in the speech from the throne with regard to an increase in the basic pension or war veterans allowances. The government has been forced by the pressure of the opposition parties and veteran organizations across the country to give in on the question of the basic pension and the minister has announced that there is to be an increase. Whether it will be an increase of 33J per cent, as has been asked for, or whether there will be another case of chiselling remains to be seen, since we have not had the figures. But we are told that nothing is to be done at this session with regard to the war veterans allowance; that a committee will be set up next year to deal with the whole matter and if it finds that there should be an increase, any increase will be made retroactive to January 1. That means that these older front-line troops will have to wait until next April or May before they get any increase in their allowance.


Mr. Fair:: Live old horse and you will get grass.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) is always able to make the apt remark because of his' Irish ancestry. This change in the war veterans allowance should be made at this session. This problem should have been dealt with at this session and I urge upon the government that some action be taken now; that this matter be not put away for another six or more months.
Some provision could be made for interim payments. The regulations governing the war veterans assistance fund could be extended by order in council without the necessity of passing legislation. Something could be done to see that these men get an automatic increase in payments during the winter months. These recipients of war veterans allowances must be taken care of now and not be compelled to wait until next spring.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that very shabby treatment is being meted out to these old front-line veterans; treatment which does not fit in with the fine words that so often have been uttered about the men who have defended this country. Over the week end I happened to run across a reprint of the statement made by the king's prime ministers in May of 1944. If you will recall, there was a gathering then in London of all the prime ministers of the commonwealth, and they
The Address-Mr. Herridge issued a joint statement which was called a statement by the king's prime ministers. In it we find these words about the men in our armed forces:
To all our armed forces who in many lands are preserving our liberty with their lives . . . we express our admiration and gratitude.
Admiration and gratitude are very nice to get but they do not fill many stomachs. I urge that the government and the House of Commons see to it that at this session these front-line Canadian veterans get more than admiration and gratitude. See that they get a proper increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance and that there be a proper raising of the ceiling on their income.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member
for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), which reads as follows:
Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
I read that in case we should forget the exact words of the subamendment. I must say that it gives me great pleasure to follow my former comrade in the 54th Kootenay battalion, a very famous battalion which, I might say, always gained its objectives. I have the idea that finally we are going to gain the objectives of those on this side of the house with respect to their proposal concerning war veterans allowance.


An hon. Member:: The good old 54th.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not going to speak at length on this question. The arguments in support of it have been placed before the house very clearly by the hon. member for Acadia. I suggest that anyone who wants to read a most convincing argument, supported by logic and accurate figures, should read the hon. member's speech at page 805 of Hansard. I thought he made a most convincing and unanswerable argument when he was speaking in support of the amendment that he moved. This evening the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who preceded me, has very neatly extended and concluded that argument and has rounded it out so that I cannot see how any government can fail to act on this matter without simply being blind to the facts, to argument and to the realities of the situation.
All speakers who have supported the subamendment have clearly demonstrated that the war veterans allowance has not kept pace with the cost of living. That is the major argument from this side of the house. Because of that, war veteran recipients in this country

The Address-Mr. Herridge are suffering gross injustice. Thousands of these men, their wives, and in some cases their dependents, are vitally concerned at this time about the cost of living, the cost of bread and butter, milk, meat, clothes, fuel and all those things that are so necessary for the maintenance of life.
I said in commencing that I was not going to speak at length or repeat the arguments so excellently made by the preceding speakers, but I want to read two short paragraphs from two organs representing the two great veterans groups in this country. First of all I wish to refer to the November, 1951, issue of The Legionary. In an editorial on this question it has this to say:
It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to have a parliamentary committee set up to deal with war veterans allowance during the current fall session so that the increase, whatever it may be, could have helped to tide the recipients over the coming winter months when expenses are heaviest. The government having announced its decision, however, The Legionary can only express the fervent hope which it feels sure all ex-servicemen and women will share, that when the amount of the increase is determined, it will be sufficient to enable these gallant old defenders of Canada's freedom to spend their remaining years in reasonable comfort, free from the fear of want or outright poverty. Nothing less than that will satisfy their younger or more fortunately placed comrades-nor, we firmly believe, the citizens of this country generally.
We completely agree with the sentiments expressed in that editorial, but we also believe that now is the time for the government to consider the position of our less fortunately placed comrades. I should also like to read one paragraph from the Veterans Advocate of June 1, 1951. This paper is the official organ of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association. In dealing with this question it has this to say:
We don't know how good our own advice is. But We are offering some to the Canadian government. This is it:	Please remember that veterans are not
a political bloc. They do not wish to become one. They have able spokesmen, men like Baker, Watts, Wickens, Lumsden, Lambert-to name a few. But these men are Canadians, first, last and all the time. They don't want to lead pressure groups or lobbyists to Ottawa. But you are going to force veterans into a pressure group unless you relieve some of that pressure and give the veteran a little of the justice he believes in and fought for. It is still not too late.
That paragraph of the editorial is very well phrased. Veterans organizations are not pressure groups in the accepted meaning of the words. Pressure groups are groups that always imply some political punishment if members of parliament or political parties do not take certain action in their favour. The veterans of this country, as represented by the two major groups, have placed their requests fairly before the cabinet, the veterans affairs committee and the country as
IMr. Herridge.]
a whole. Because of their responsible and fair representations, because of the need that exists at this time, we wholeheartedly support the amendment to the amendment. I am quite sure, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, there is not a single member in this house who dares to rise and say that these veterans do not require an increase in the rate of war veterans allowance and are not entitled to a raise in the ceiling for earnings, as suggested by the hon. member who preceded me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this session too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been ardently supporting the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia. I regret I find that duty requires me to bring to the attention of the house some of the remarks of his leader on a certain occasion and to do my best to correct the false impression he may have created. I am speaking of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).


Mr. Johnston:: Don't spoil a good speech.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to refer to page 55 of Hansard. At that time the hon. member was speaking in this debate. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) interrupted and said:
What about peaches in the Peace river district?
Then the hon. member for Peace River replied:
By George, I am going to tell you something about that. The British Columbia Fruit Growers Association attempted to take me to task because I had decried the stupidity of people who would allow peaches to go to waste, tons and tons of them, at a time when the people on the prairies were not able to get them. They wired me to the effect that they had incontrovertible evidence to show that 30,000 packages of fruit had been distributed in my constituency, the Peace river, of which 10,000 were peaches. I have determined that a package of peaches is a crate containing approximately three dozen.
I am glad the hon. member at least found that out.
There are 17,000 families in the Peace river country and the Fruit Growers Association of British Columbia were sufficiently interested to see that each family in the Peace river country got about 24 or 25 peaches. Does that sound like decent distribution? At the same time I saw with my own eyes perfectly good fruit going to waste at Summer-land and in various parts of the Okanagan.
Now, in addition to that I saw a dispatch from the Vancouver Daily Province which reads as follows:
Kelowna-B.C. Fruit Growers' Association has demanded that Solon Low, federal leader of the Social Credit party, either substantiate or withdraw statements to the effect that B.C. fruit is unavailable to consumers on the prairies and that peaches were unobtainable in the Peace river country.

In a telegram sent to Mr. Low Saturday night. A. R. Garrish, president of the B.C.F.G.A., stated the association "takes a most serious view of your charges regarding fruit distribution in the prairie provinces".
Mr. Low, speaking at a Social Credit meeting in Summerland last week, criticized the B.C. fruit marketing set-up.
Mr. Low referred to a fruit industry "gestapo" or "gestapo-like fruit inspectors" who prevent persons from taking fruit from this province into Alberta unless it has been purchased through the proper channels.
In demanding that Mr. Low either substantiate his statements or withdraw them, Mr. Garrish stated in his telegram that "incontrovertible evidence" shows that close to 30,000 packages of fruit were distributed to Peace River, of which 10,000 were peaches, and that approximately 2,000,000 packages were shipped to the prairie provinces, of which 785,000 went to the province of Alberta.
I have been asked by a number of members of the Fruit Growers Association of British Columbia, to which I belong, to bring this matter before the house to correct the false impression created by the hon. member's remarks. I will be generous enough to say that I think the hon. member for Peace River spoke without thoroughly examining the situation, and without a full knowledge of the facts.
I want to say before proceeding further that I speak with some little knowledge of the question, as I have been closely associated with fruit growers associations in British Columbia for some forty odd years. I have played some small part in my own constituency, and in the association-with thousands of other growers- to build up the excellent co-operative fruit association that exists in British Columbia at the present time.
It is because of that that I feel I must correct my hon. friend. In 1900 there were possibly from 600 to 700 boxes of fruit produced in the interior of British Columbia. In 1950 we produced over 8 million boxes of apples. That is a very short number of years to see an industry develop from such a small beginning to such vast proportions. I remember very well its early days. I can say that, on this question, I speak with a certain amount of sentiment. I have lived closely with the problem throughout the years, and I know of the early struggles of the people who developed the fruit industry in British Columbia. I know of the great investment in both wealth and labour that was required to bring that industry to its present stage of development. They have built this great co-operative, one which all fruit organizations of this type in the rest of the world recognize as the leading example of a first-class fruit co-operative marketing organization.
The Address-Mr. Herridge
I remember seeing hundreds of settlers coming in, most of them with no experience, and many with very little capital. They came in to clear the land, to provide irrigation, and to prepare the land for fruit growing purposes. In my own case we had a most interesting experience. I remember that my father was confronted with some difficulty in connection with the clearing of small brush from the area. Someone recommended that he get a herd of goats, and said that the goats would eat the small trees, those up to six inches in diameter. So, off he went to buy a herd of goats. He heard there was a herd available somewhere. We were told to tie up the goats in the woods, where we had a clearing, and to leave them there for about two days, after which we could release them. Then they would eat in an ever-widening circle, and in that way the small brush and small trees would disappear, while in addition we would have the milk.
We did all this. My father went about a hundred miles away, purchased a herd of goats, brought them home, and tied them up for two or three days, and then released them. Within two hours they had all disappeared, and they never came back.
I give that as one illustration of the things people did in those early days.


Mr. Gibson:: That is where you get all
your votes now-their descendants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't let them get your
goat.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would say this, that,
judging from the bleating I hear from Comox-Alberni, sometimes I think they went there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And eventually landed in
the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There was great expense
involved in clearing this land, providing irrigation and planting trees. Then we had the first crops coming in. Those crops were sold in local markets, to mines and lumber camps. However, as soon as we had larger production the local markets were not sufficient, and we had to sell on the prairie. Then, following that, the British market was developed.
As the crop increased further we found that personal marketing of our crops was completely inefficient, and failed to produce satisfactory returns. In fact, the industry almost faced disaster at one time. I remember a neighbour of mine going to Calgary with a carload of fruit. He said he was going to sell his own fruit, and he was going to sell it right to the brokers in Calgary.
948	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge He went to one particular broker and offered his carload of McIntosh apples at $1.25 a box-and there are 750 boxes in a car.
This man said, "I cannot pay that much. I can buy them for much less than that." Away the owner went, saying, "Well, I can get that much from someone else." As soon as he had left this broker, the broker in question telephoned four others in that line of trade. He said, "I have offered this bird $1.25. You offer him $1.15." The result was that when he got to the fourth man he was offered 75 cents.
This poor man, who was paying demurrage on the car all the while, and hotel expenses, went back to the first broker and said, "I will accept your $1.25." "No, you won't," the broker replied, "I will give you 75 cents." Finally he accepted 75 cents-and the four brokers split the difference between the 75 cents and the $1.25.
That was the sort of thing that happened when we had personal marketing, with men having to stand on their own feet alone and face a so-called competitive market.
I remember another grower who took a carload of apples to Regina. He was not going to sell through a broker, but was going to sell direct to the consumer. He rolled his car into Regina, and advertised in the Regina papers, "Carload of British Columbia fruit; buy your apples from the door", at such and such a date.
When he got to Regina, through the instrumentality of a local wholesale fruit concern-and I will not give the name-he was charged for selling without a licence. The truth was that he had a perfect right to sell without a licence. However in this case the court was not held that day. His car of fruit was tied up on the spur for two days. Then this big concern rolled in another car of fruit from Moose Jaw and placed it right behind his.
After facing trial his case was dismissed, when it was shown that he 'had a perf ect right to sell his own product. Then this other car of fruit was opened up and, whatever price he asked, the wholesaler sold under him. So he was glad enough to sell his fruit for a very low price and return to British Columbia. That sort of experience happened frequently, and it was because of this state of affairs the fruit growers in British Columbia determined they had to have a co-operative organization for the marketing of their fruit.
This organization was attempted on a voluntary basis at first, without satisfactory supporting legislation. The old Okanagan united growers was formed. The growers found it was not satisfactory, because they were not selling fruit over one desk. There was


still some internal competition between the Okanagan united growers and individual shipping houses. And so finally they conceived the idea of the natural products marketing act. Under internal competition distribution was poor, so that carloads would roll into Calgary and other cities while the small and distant towns would not receive a sufficient supply of apples. There was a high percentage of bad accounts, a large percentage of claims for loss, rebates and so on.
However, as the result of grower representations, in 1935 the government of British Columbia passed the Natural Products Marketing Act, and that is the basis for all our co-operative marketing of fruit in the interior of British Columbia at this time. Under that act we have the tree fruit board which represents the growers, and is elected by the growers at an annual meeting of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. Then, associated with that tree fruit board we have Tree Fruits Limited, which is simply the selling agency of the fruit board. The tree fruit board drafts the regulations governing the actions of the sales agency and the growers in the selling of the crop. At the present time all the tree fruit in the interior of British Columbia, whether it comes from such large co-operatives as the Associated Growers or from any of the individual growers such as myself- I am a very small one-or from independent shipping houses, goes through Tree Fruits Limited, the central selling agency. On that account, Tree Fruits Limited was able to bring order out of chaos and sell our fruit to much greater advantage than previously.
As a result of that great co-operative effort-mind you, it was a struggle for years and the Okanagan and Kootenay fruit industries were threatened with catastrophe until this arrangement was made-made by the co-operative minded people of all parties, order has been brought out of selling chaos. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Kootenay executive with members of the Conservative party and other growers who support the Liberal party. Regardless of party politics in British Columbia, so far as the fruit industry is concerned, the vast majority of the fruit growers support central selling and support the co-operative organization which they have built over the years.
Now, what has been the result? First of all, the fruit growers, since organizing under this plan, have received a larger percentage of the consumers' dollar. Figures will show that. Now that we have planned distribution, these products go out to prairie points and

export markets in such fashion that the small town, so far as is humanly possible, has shipped to it the amount of apples or other fruits it normally requires at any season. The fruit growers organization, under their own selling agency, the Canadian Fruit Distributors, which is a jobbing concern owned by the fruit growers themselves, accomplish this distribution. Any profits made in the brokerage are returned to the growers at the end of the season. Our claims on cars of apples have been reduced from an average of $17 per car to $2 per car as the result of co-operative action. We have almost completely eliminated bad debts. In addition to that, through co-ordinated and co-operative advertising, the public is much better informed as to the varieties of fruit that are in season, and the best varieties to purchase for certain purposes. Co-ordination of the industry through the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, the tree fruits board and Tree Fruits Limited, makes possible industry co-operation with the government for the development of any program. This was clearly demonstrated during the war when the War Measures Act was in operation. In addition to that, in recent years it has made possible the processing of large numbers of culls, thus eliminating waste. This organization, democratic from the roots up, was built by the growers and supported by the growers. These very efficient men who operate the sales agency have been repeatedly endorsed at annual meetings since they attained that office. Their work and ability are recognized by the growers and by those interested in fruit marketing in all parts of the world.
I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to speak of an organization like that, and some of its officials, as using gestapo-like methods. I think that is a rather loose use of the English language. I have in my hand a monthly magazine published in British Columbia known as Country Life. It is not printed on shiny paper of high quality, but it is a publication that represents practically all the farm interests in British Columbia. It publishes some very meaty information and comment. Speaking in a recent debate I made some criticisms of weekly publications in this country, and stated that many of them lacked moral courage and colour and so on. Here is one monthly agricultural periodical that has the courage to inform the farmer fully on any situation. The editorials and news items are always very salty, and very informative. The editor, Mr. C. A. Hayden, does not pull any punches. I have here an article in the October issue entitled, "Solon
The Address-Mr. Herridge Low basely harms B.C. fruit growers and himself by misrepresentation of facts". The article goes on to state:
His statements at Summerland where he advocated wild-cat selling, as practised before growers' 1933 rebellion, are flatly refuted by official figures on distribution of B.C.'s 1951 tree fruits to prairies and Peace River area: his attitude is the opposite of late premier William Aberhart.
This is quite a lengthy article dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), and expressing considerable concern over the possibility that those remarks may do damage to a great industry and to a great co-operative effort. I will only quote a few paragraphs as my time is going:
Obviously Mr. Low has not acquainted himself with the tree fruit growers' successful rebellion in 1933 against the very practice which he advocated.
That is selling apples outside the co-operative organization and without the support of a Natural Products Marketing Act. Here again Mr. Hayden says:
The evil of such misrepresentations is that they find belief in various quarters and the further mischief is that it is never possible to catch up with misrepresentations.
Now, let us take a look at the actual figures respecting distribution, figures which the railways and other transportation agencies can attest and which the B.C. Tree Fruits Limited auditors will attest in due course.
Then he goes on to give the 1951 tree fruits distribution up to September 27. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that all those packages mentioned, nearly two million, were distributed by September 28. The article continues:
All these packages were marketed through the single agency, B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, the cooperative owned and operated by the tree fruit growers themselves. There was no confusion, no overlapping, no bluffing, no withholding of proper supply.
It was orderly marketing, designed and conducted for the maximum distribution of fruit at the lowest possible cost to the ultimate consumer.
I want to mention another paragraph, because occasionally we see references to dumping. I might say that a lot of good people at times make statements without knowledge of the facts. They will drive through fruit country and see apples on the trees. In many cases they have a woodpecker-bite or other defects which cannot be seen from the road. It appears as though large numbers of apples are being wasted. In recent years there has been a great development in processing apples. Our industry has certain difficulties in connection with the isolation of some localities. The member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will know what I mean when I refer to places like Johnsons Landing. Because of

The Address-Mr. Herridge this handicap it is necessary to have somewhat flexible regulations. Whenever and wherever they can get a large volume close to a processing plant, increasing amounts of these culls are being processed in order to avoid that waste. Wherever they are not processed, it is simply not economically possible to do it.
Now I shall read this paragraph on dumping, Mr. Speaker:
Again, as a matter of record, the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association has taken every measure to make dumping unnecessary. One such measure has been the establishing of B.C. Fruit Processors Limited, which they own and operate. One of its main purposes is to process low grade apples and, in due course, other tree fruits, into desirable commercial products.
That is, fruit juices and products of that type.
I have a reference here that deals with last year's operations. 1 have in my hand the balance sheet of B.C. Fruit Processors Limited as of May 31, 1951. Last year the net sales of manufactured products from apples that ordinarily would have been wasted was nearly $1,500,000. That is a large industry and it is growing. I can assure the hon. member that we have brainy men, men who have devoted their lives to this industry, who are doing everything possible to see that the production of our trees is used to the greatest possible advantage.
If the hon. member understood the position clearly I am sure that he would not accuse our agents or our inspectors of being like gestapo agents or of being gestapo-like fruit inspectors, who prevent people from taking fruit to Alberta. I know that they sometimes irritate people coming from Alberta, because they come with a truck, and they cannot understand why they cannot bring in a truck load of grain and take a truck load of fruit back. What is done by law in this matter is exactly what is done in connection with the wheat pool. The industry has to consider the greatest good of the greatest number. Through experience it has been found that if you allow a certain amount of personal or individual trucking, you will find those people undercutting or underselling, and taking advantage of the umbrella of co-operation established on the basis of the work of the majority. The great majority of our growers would never return to the chaotic conditions of unregulated selling.
Just recently our organization has been sending out contracts for further signature. I signed my contract quite recently. I just heard quite recently that, although the campaign is not finished, somewhere between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the fruit growers of the interior of British Columbia have
[Mr. Herridge. 1
already signed a contract with the tree fruit board, Tree Fruits Limited and with the packing house that they are shipping through. I say again that no one with any experience in the tree fruit industry and any knowledge of the situation would return to the unregulated marketing situation that existed prior to the development of the co-operative to which I have the honour to belong.
The hon. member's remarks reflect upon the intelligence of the growers concerned, upon our organization and upon the principle of co-operation. I suggest that the hon. member visit the Okanagan valley and investigate the situation more closely for himself. I am sure that the officials of the tree fruit board, Tree Fruits Limited and the officers of all the packing houses concerned, whether they are co-operatively owned or privately owned, will be only too pleased to place at his disposal all the information he requires so that he can be well and properly informed. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that once he receives this information he will have an entirely different opinion of the development of cooperative marketing in the interior of British Columbia, and I am sure that he will admit to me that our organization operates to the advantage of the producers, the public in general and the consumer.
In conclusion let me say this. Let us be careful in these difficult times to do nothing to dim the light of co-operation because, as I see it, the lamp of co-operation is the one light that can guide us through the night of economic chaos to the land of economic justice.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Rooney:: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?
Some' hon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for St. Paul's wish to speak tonight?


James Hendrick Rooney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to place this small contribution on the record
tonight. I do not believe it will take more than five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member be allowed to speak now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hendrick Rooney: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with all

the previous speakers who have congratulated the mover of the address (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) on the splendid way in which they have fulfilled the task assigned to them.
I am taking the liberty of bringing before parliament the urgent necessity of having this house look into the matter of a five-day week for all bank staffs in Canada. When I was associated with the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, chartered accountants in Toronto, I had the honour of being associated with the audit of the Dominion bank, Imperial bank, bank of Toronto and the old Standard bank. Through this association I met many bank officials and staff, and I know the wonderful work they do every day for Canada. We take it for granted that the banks are there and we forget the staffs who look after us with a smile. But suppose the staff was not there-and that is what is going to happen if something is not done to remedy their working hours.
I remember a surprise audit some years ago on one of the banks on New Year's eve. I grabbed a small cage, not knowing it was the clearing cage. I worked until 2 a.m. and felt sorry for myself. I forgot, however, that after I left the staff were still there to clear up. This was some years ago. The bank staffs were among the forgotten then and they are among the forgotten now.
The senior officials who have been through this experience are not complaining but they are worrying about who are going to take their places, as young people will not work in banks under present-day working conditions. Let us do something now to preserve our high standard of banking which the world admires.
On May 8, 1950, as reported at page 2258 of Hansard, I asked the following questions:
I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Will the acting minister give consideration to the abolition of the sales tax on cigarettes and tobacco sold to veterans in military hospital's . . .
The Address-Mr. Rooney I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he give consideration to the abolition of the sales tax on materials which patients in the veterans hospitals purchase for occupational therapy and handicraft work, on which these patients make a few dollars by personal sales.
Once again I am bringing this matter to the attention of the government, hoping that something will be done in the matter, as I believe the boys are highly deserving of this consideration.
I thank the house for allowing me to make these remarks tonight.
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.



Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will
take up the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to set up a committee to examine defence expenditures. I understand that this will be a short debate; but if it were not concluded at five o'clock we would adjourn it and take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to set up the agricultural products board. Hon. members heard the minister, in his speech tonight, state that he had to leave Ottawa in the near future. When we have disposed of those two resolutions, we will take up the resolution of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) concerning the Government Annuities Act.


Robert Fair: When is prorogation coming?


Alphonse Fournier: Not before December 15.


Robert Fair: I thought it was coming tomorrow night.


Alphonse Fournier: Next we will take
the resolution of the Secretary of State with regard to the Public Printing and Stationery Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 13, 1951